Gujarat Court July 1965 Judgments
Baxi Mir Vahiduddinkhan Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj149
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated February 27, 1951 which held that the claim for compensation filed by the petitioner in respect of the extinguishment of a grant in his favour fell under Section 15 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act) and for a mandamus directing the State of Gujarat to continue to pay to the petitioner and his descendants the sum of Rs. 12,522 annually, and, in the alternative, for a mandamus directing the State of Gujarat to pay to the petitioner as compensation the amount of Rs. 4,17,400, being the capitalised value of the said grant of Rs. 12,522 which came to be extinguished under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act.2. The petitioner is the descendant of one Mir Nazmuddinkhan who was the cousin of the Nawab of Surat and the Baxi of his forces in or about t...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaiyalal Maneklal Chinai and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR717
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate direction, order or writ for quashing and setting aside a notification dated 18th August 1961 purporting to acquire certain land belonging to the petitioners. The principal point involved in the petition raises a question as to the validity of Section 3(4) of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioners' Act) and two notifications issued by the State Government under that section, one dated 5th September 1958 and the other dated 22nd September 1958, but there are also several subsidiary points taken in the petition and in order to understand and appreciate them, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the petition in some detail.2. The petitioners are owners of a certain property known as 'China Baug' bearing Survey Nos. 348B and 349 situate at Dariapur Kazipur, Ahmedabad. The said property is situate on the bank of the river Sabarmati and adjoins a vast area of open ...
Tag this Judgment!Vir Vikramsinhji Mulvaji Jadeja Vs. Chunilal Dahyabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR836
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. The petitioner challenges the election of the respondent No. 1 as the President of Lodhika Gram Panchayat and prays that he himself be declared as duly elected as the President and further prays that any other appropriate writ order or direction should be issued in that behalf.2. The undisputed facts are these: The petitioner was a member of Lodhika Taluka Panchayat in his capacity as the Sarpanch of the Lodhika Gram Panchayat. The respondent No. 1 was a member of the said Taluka Panchayat in his capacity as the elected chairman of the co-operative societies within the Taluka. On 24-1-1963 the respondent No. 1 was elected as the President of the Lodhika Taluka Panchayat. His tenure as the Chairman of his co-operative Society expired on 31-12-1963 and therefore he ceased to be a member of the Lodhika Taluka Panchayat. The District Development Officer who is respondent No. 3 having come to the conclusion that he viz. the respondent No. 1 ceased to be the President ord...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyed Rahmanmiya Mustafamiya Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj200; (1965)GLR978
Shelat, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application and Special Civil Applications Nos. 696, 794, 861, 930, 931, 1017, 388 and 949 of 1968 and Nos. 168, 811, 812 and 65 of 1964 involve identical facts and common questions of law and can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Special Civil Applications Nos. 588 of 1963 and 168 of 1964 how ever raise an additional question which we pro pose to deal separately in this judgment. Thefacts in all these petitions being similar, it is not necessary to recite them from all the petitions, and it will be enough if we take the facts in Special Civil Application No. 572 of 19815 as typical for a proper appreciation of the questions raised before us.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 572 of 1963 was at all material times a barkhalidar, and as such his rights as those of a barkhalidar were accepted first by the former Junagadh State and thereafter by the ex-Saurashtra State, and cash annuity orders were issued in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1965
Reported in: (1966)0GLR156
Bhagwati, J. 1. The petition raises the question of validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, as amended by the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961, and the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1962. 2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It is carrying on business of manufacturing cotton textiles and owns a factory situated in Ahmedabad. In its balance sheet for the year 1961 it showed as one of its liabilities a sum of Rs. 4,38,987 under the heading 'sundry creditors.' This amount included Rs. 2,37,863.85 which was made up of wages earned by the workmen in the factory but remaining undrawn by them and bonus for which no claim was made by the workmen within the prescribed time to earn the same under the condition of eligibility laid down in the relevant bonus agreements or awards and represented the total of such assumed liability from year to year eve...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinchandra Ramnarayan Bhat Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Guj17; 1968CriLJ150
Vakil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Special Judge at Ahmedabad convicting the appellant under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for both the offences for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. (2) In November 1962, the appellant was an employee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporaiton and was serving as a conservancy Sub-Inspector in the Ward known as Khokhra Mehmdabad. His duty, at that time, was to take roll-call of sweepers and other members of the conservancy staff in that ward at the office located there. Fakir bhai Maganbhai and Shankerbhai Ashabhai were amongst these sweepers who were posted to do the work in that ward. These two persons have been referred to by the learned Judge as the complainants in his judgment, and, for convenience's sake, we sha...
Tag this Judgment!Saved Mohmed Baquir-el-edroos Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR217
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This appeal raises a short question whether the grant of village Umraj in Broach District was a personal Inam or an Inam held by the religious institution known as Edroos Durgah at Broach, hereinafter referred to as 'the Durgah'.2. The plaintiff as the Sajjadnsihin of the Durgah filed the present suit on the ground that the said grant of village Umraj, being an Inam held by a religious or charitable institution, was exempted from the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952; hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and also from the provisions of the Bombay Land Tenures Abolition (Recovery of Records) Act, 1953, and on that basis asked for consequential reliefs so that the said two Acts might not be enforced in respect of the said religious institution.3. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, was as under:The plaintiff belonged to the family which goes under the name of Edroos. The ancestors of the plaintiff claim a direct descent from Hazarat Imam Ali, the son-in-la...
Tag this Judgment!Punjabhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs. Shah Jayantilal Manilal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR849
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition broadly stated are that the petitioner, Councillor of the Nadiad Borough Municipality, sent to the Collector of Kaira, an application dated 6th March 1964 requesting him to inquire and disqualify Respondent No.l Shri J.M. Shah from his continuance as a Councillor of the said Nadiad Borough Municipality, on the ground that he had absented himself for four successive months at the meetings duly held by the Municipality of Nadiad without the leave of the Municipality as required under Section 28(1)(d) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as the old Act). The Collector of Nadiad thereupon acting under Section 28(2) of the said Act made suitable inquiries and finding that Respondent No. 1 had absented himself at the meetings held during the period of four months issued a notice on 4th April 1964 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be disqualified as a Councillor of the Municipality under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Harilal Bhojik and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj183; (1965)0GLR727
Bhagwatl, J.1. This group of eight petitions raises the issue as to the constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1960, which was passed by the Gujaral Legislature in order in further amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) The principal Act was passed by the State Legislature as a measure of agrarian reform on 28th December 1948 with a view to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands arid to make certain other provisions in regard to those lands and the objectives sought to be achieved were inter alia the improvement of the economic and social conditions of peasants and ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural purposes Certain minor amendments were thereafter made in the principal Act from time to time but they are not material for the purpose of the present petitions and we need not, therefore, pause to refer to them....
Tag this Judgment!Udesing Pratapsing and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR627
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These two revision Applications are directed against the order dated 6th March 1965 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol in Criminal Appeals No. 36 and 37 of 1964 by which the learned Judge confirmed the convictions and sentences passed on the two sets of applicants under Section 65(a) Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 and confirmed the conviction under Section 66(1)(b) Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 but set aside the sentence passed thereon. Six persons were prosecuted for the aforesaid two offences before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Dholka. The learned Magistrate convicted accused Nos. 1 2 and 3 of the offences under Sections 65(a) and 66(1)(b) Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 and sentenced them for those two offences and acquitted the other three accused Nos. 4 5 and 6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1964 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »