Gujarat Court June 1965 Judgments
Ratilal Fulchand and ors. Vs. Parikh Indravadan Manilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj133; (1965)GLR796
1. This Second Appeal arises from the decision, dated 39th December 1967, recorded by the learned Assistant Judge, Nadiad, in Civil Appeal No. 227 of 1956, by which the learned Judge confirmed the decree, dated 31st August 1956, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J. D.), Nadiad, in Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1956, which, however, was originally instituted on 12th October 1954. The suit was instituted by one Bai Chanchal, sister of one Ranchhodlal Girdharbhai, for a declaration that the sale deed, dated 12th June 1954, executed by Diwali, widow of Ranchhodlal Girdharbhai, was not binding on her as Ranchhodlal's reversionary heir and for possession of the first floor which was, on the date of the suit, in possession of the alienee Parikh Indravadan Manilal, the respondent. Chanchal died since and she is now represented by her heirs who are appellants in this Court. The defence of respondent was that the alienation was for legal necessity, that he had paid proper and full price for...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Begum W/O Syed Mahomadali G. Inamdar and ors. Vs. Raisang Bechar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR810
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the Collector of Broach reducing the purchase price for certain lands fixed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners were the owners of lands bearing Survey Nos. 121 122 and 123 situate in village Osara Taluka Broach District Broach. The respective areas of these lands were 2 acres 33 gunthas 4 acres 11 gunthas and 5 acres 11 gunthas and their respective assessments were Rs. 15-56 Rs. 23-50 and 29-00. The first respondent was the tenant of the petitioners in respect of the lands and there is no dispute that on the tillers day that is 1 April 1957 the first respondent was deemed to have purchased the lands from the petitioners. The petitioners and the first respondent could not reach an agreement in regard to the purchase price of the lands and proceedings for determining the purchase price of the...
Tag this Judgment!Gopichand Khoobchand Sharma Vs. the Works Manager, Loco Shops, Western ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR291
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The principal question which arises in these petitions relates to the scope and ambit of the power of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to an application made by an employed person for deducted wages under Section 15 where the claim for deduction is sought to be supported by the employer by reference to the provisions of Section 7(2)(h). The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical save for the name of the petitioner and the amount involved in each case and it will, therefore, be convenient if we set out the facts relating to the petitions together. The petitioner in the first petition was at all material times employed as a Material Examiner in the Loco Shop, the petitioner in the second petition was employed as a Fitter in the Electrical Workshop and the petitioner in the third petition was employed as a Fitter in the R.M. Shop of the Western Railway Administration at Dohad. In respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopichand Khoobchand Sharma and ors. Vs. Works Manager, Loco-shops, We ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj27; (1966)GLR291
Bhagwati, J.(1) The principal question which arises in these petitions relates to the scope and ambit of the power of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in relation to an application made by an employed person for deducted wages under Section 15 where the claim for deduction is sought to be supported by the employer by reference to the provisions of Section 7(2)(h). The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical save for the name of the petitioner and the amount involved in each case and it will, therefore, be convenient if we set out the facts relating to the petitions together. The petitioner in the first petition was at all material times employed as a material Examiner in the Loco Shop, the petitioner in the second petition was employed as a Fitter in the Electrical Workshop and the petitioner in the third petition was employed as a Fitter in the R.M. Shop of the Western Railway Administration at Dohad. In respect of an i...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Mazumdar Vs. Mohamad Kasam Mirza and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj15; 1967CriLJ60; (1965)GLR867
ORDER(1) A complaint was filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which was not signed by the Food Inspector, Summons was issued to the accused. When the accused appeared, he contended that the complaint was not legal as it was not signed by the complainant. The Food Inspector gave an application to withdraw the complaint on the ground that it did not bear the signature and also requested for permission to file a fresh complaint. The learned Magistrate passed an order permitting the withdrawal of the complaint with a further permission to file a fresh complaint and acquitted the accused under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said Section 248 reads as under:-'If a Complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint the Magistrate, may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused.'If a complaint i...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Mazmudar, Food Inspector Vs. Mohmad Kasam and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR867
V.B. Raju, J.1. A complaint was filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which was not signed by the Food Inspector. Summons was issued to the accused. When the accused appeared, he contended that the complaint was not legal as it was not signed by the complainant.The Food Inspector gave an application to withdraw the complaint on the ground that it did not bear his signature and also requested for permission to file a fresh complaint. The learned Magistrate passed an order permitting withdrawal of the complaint with a further permission to file a fresh complaint and acquitted the accused under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said Section 248 reads as under:If a complainant at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same and shall thereupon acquit the accused.If a complaint is wit...
Tag this Judgment!Siddimiya Gulammohmad Vs. the Asst. Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR467
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This petition is directed against two orders, (1) the order passed by the Additional Collector and confirmed by the State Government, determining that the grant in question was a non-proprietary Jagir, and (2) the orders determining compensation, Exhibits L to N to the petition, by which the Assistant Collector, Anand, determined compensation payable to the petitioner for the abolition of his Jagir under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, XXXIX of 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Jagir Abolition Act.2. According to the petitioner, he was at all material time the Inamdar in respect of shared villages, Jamalpur, Aspur, Bhan-talavdi and Chikhli-Joza, situate in the territories of the ex-Balasinor State. The case of the petitioner was that his ancestors, who were pirjadas, were holding these four villages as personal inams even before the existence of the Balasinor State. It appears that certain disputes regarding the management of these...
Tag this Judgment!Naranlal Mohanlal Purani Vs. Azamkhan Ahmedkhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR846
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Application is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff in 1962 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad being Civil Suit No. 867 of 1962 of that Court. At the trial of that suit a document Ex. 4/1 was tendered as an exhibit and the learned Judge trying the suit came to the conclusion that it was insufficiently stamped. He therefore assessed the deficit at Rs. 88-50 and he also assessed the penalty at Rs. 885/-. The total amount according to the learned Judge therefore came to Rs. 973-50 and the learned Judge then passed the following order:I impound the instrument Ex. 4/1. and direct that plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs. 973-50 nP. as deficit stamp duty and penalty within two weeks from today.It is against this order of the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff has filed this Revision Application.2. The order passed by the learned Judge in the City Civil Court w...
Tag this Judgment!Maharajkumar Shri Pramodsinhji of Rajpipla Vs. the State of Gujarat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR1
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. On April 29, 1961, Sir Vijaysinhji Chhatrasinhji, the then ruler of Rajpipla State, expired leaving him surviving three sons, of whom the present petitioner was the second son. According to the petitioner, the said Sir Vijaysinhji, in accordance with the custom prevailing in the family of the rulers of Rajpipla, passed an order on August 19, 1946, which was to have effect from July 1, 1946, whereunder he granted to the petitioner, for the purpose of providing maintenance to him, three villages, namely, Amletha, Tropa and Ori, yielding an annual revenue of Rs. 15, 533, the revenue thereof and in addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 20, 467/- as and by way of cash allowance payable every year. In pursuance of that order, the said Sir Vijaysinhji, as the ruler of the Rajpipla State, issued a Sanad. The Sanad inter alia provided that the petitioner was to be the full owner of the entire revenue of the said three villages irrespective of any increase that might be caused by an...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Chimanlal and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj148; 1967CriLJ879; (1967)ILLJ447Guj
Bhagwati, J. 1. These petitions challenge the vires of S. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, in so far as it provides for imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for the offences set out in that section. Though the question of law raised in the two petitions is identical, the facts giving rise to the two petitions are different and it is, therefore, necessary to set them out briefly before we proceed to discuss the question of law. 2. The facts in Special Civil Application No. 686 of 1962 are as follows. Petitioner 1 is a partner in a firm called Zaverchand Laxmichand Bros. and Co. which carries on business as managing agents of Sri Yamuna Mills, Ltd. Sri Yamuna Mills, Ltd., carries on business inter alia of manufacturing and selling cotton textile goods and for the purpose of manufacturing cotton textile goods it has a factory in Baroda. The factory is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, and in accordance with the provisions of S. 2(n) of the Act, petitioner 1 is the o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »