Gujarat Court January 1965 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Ranchhod Bhula Rabari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj83; 1966CriLJ411; (1965)GLR406
1. These two appeals--one by the State and the other by the private complainant--are against the acquittal of respondent Ranchhod Bhula Rabari, who was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The two grounds given for acquittal by the learned Magistrate are (1) that the sanction is improper, and (2) that the Public Analyst, who sent his report, has not himself analysed the sample sent to him. On other points, he finds in favour of the prosecution. Regarding the first point, Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides as follows:'20. (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority: Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser referred to in Section 12, if he produces in Court a co...
Tag this Judgment!Digvijaysinhji Hamirsinhji Vs. H.K. Oza and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR632
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for quashing the order of the District Magistrate Jamnagar dated April 7, 1964 directing the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 and the order of the State Government dated June 2 1964 confirming the same and for a direction for the release of the petitioner from detention at present in the Central Jail at Rajkot.2. At the material time the petitioner was the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat of village Kharedi and had been so acting ever since 1956 having been elected as such from time to time. He was also the chairman of the Kharedi Multi-purpose Co-operative Society and an elected member of the Taluka Kalawad Panchayat as also a member of the District Panchayat Jamnagar District. As a member of the Swatantra Party he contested during the last general elections as a candidate of that party.3. By his order dated April 7 1964 the District Magistrate directed that the petitioner be detained ...
Tag this Judgment!Vora SirajudIn KalimuddIn and anr. Vs. SafkathasseIn BadruddIn and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR512
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants in the court of the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Godhra, for specific performance of an agreement of lease executed on 6th November 1952, and as deceased Haji Badruddin has committed a breach thereof, for a permanent injunction restraining him from recovering a sum of Rs. 6,000/- advanced to them under a mortgage-deed dated 11th November 1952 and for costs of the suit against the original defendant Haji Badruddin Musaji Poonawala, as the owner and Vabivatdar of a Firm in the name of Haji Badruddin Musaji Poonawala and Sons. On his death having taken place during the pendency of the suit, his heirs and legal representatives have been joined as defendants.2. The plaintiffs-appellants are brothers and they owned a house situated in Municipal Lots Nos. 137 and 138 at Godhra. During the communal riots which took place in 1952 that house was burnt. The original defendant Haji Badruddin Mus...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Kumar Bapalal Vs. Chhanalal Ranchhodlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj281; (1965)GLR498
ORDER1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is original defendant No. 2. The original plaintiff and original defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are the opponents in the Civil Revision Application. The plaintiff filed a summary suit, being summary suit No 55/1963, in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad, against the four defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 2000. Thereafter a summons for judgment appears to have been taken out and on February10, 1964, the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes passed an order granting conditional leave to defend to defendant No. 2, the present petitioner. The condition was that the second defendant should deposit the amount claimed in the suit within two weeks; and on such deposit being made, the defendant was granted leave to defend. The present Civil Revision Application was filed on March 4, 1964 against this conditional order passed by the learned Judge in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad.2. After the Civil Revision Application was f...
Tag this Judgment!ismailbhai Gafoorbhai Vora Vs. R. Parthasarthy, District Magistrate, K ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj62; 1966CriLJ405; (1965)GLR382
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the order No. P. O. L./D.IP-1962 passed on December 3, 1964 by the District Magistrate, Kaira a District, detaining the petitioner under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. 1962.2. According to the petitioner, he was at the material time, working as a petition-writer in Kapadvanj, District Kaira, and has been so working for the last about fifteen years. Prior to April 1963, one Mahamadmiya Nanamiya was his partner in his aforesaid business. But, the said Mahamadmiya ceased to be his partner as from April 1963 and set up a competing busness. According to the petitioner, as a result of the dissolution of his partnership, the said Mahamadmiya began to have a grudge against him and since April 1963, has been bringing the petitioner into different troubles & difficulties. It is also the case of the petitioner that there has been some hostility between him and some of the senior lawyers at Kapadvanj, as a consequence of which both he and...
Tag this Judgment!Chinubhai Gopaldas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj46; 1966CriLJ261; (1965)GLR227
1. Although two bottles were sent to the Chemical Analyser, an order for confiscating 1684 bottler was passed underSection 98 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Beforean order can be passed under Section 98 of thesaid Act, it must be proved that the thing inrespect of which an order is passed is liableto be confiscated. Under Section 98 of the BombayProhibition Act, the entire stock of such intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers or molasses canbe confiscated, but It must, be proved thatwhat is to be confiscated is intoxicant, hemp,mhowra flowers or molasses. By showing thattwo bottles are Intoxicants, it is not provedthat 1500 and odd other bottles are intoxicants.Unless it is proved that 1600 and odd bottlescontained intoxicants, hemp, mhowra flowersor molasses, the order of confiscation in respectof those bottles cannot he passed. The orderof confiscation of all the bottles excepting thetwo bottles which have been sent to the Chemical Analyser and which have been proved tobe intoxicants is, th...
Tag this Judgment!Dadia Bhailal Motichand Vs. Vanad Maganlal Hirabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj59; (1965)GLR364
1. The appellant in this Second Appeal is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 300 of 1957, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamangar, to realise the amount alleged to be due to him at the foot of the mortgage executed in his favour by the defendant. The only contention that appears to have been urged before the learned trial Judge was regarding limitation and the learned trial Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation and the learned trial Judge, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff thereupon went in appeal and at the stage of appeal, the learned District Judge, Halar, confirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. He also held that the suit was barred by limitation. Thereafter the original plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge.2. In order to appreciate the point regarding limitation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›