Gujarat Court August 1965 Judgments
Sirajbhai Gulambhai Vs. State of Gajarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1541; (1966)GLR119
V.B. Raju, J.1. The conviction of the appellant under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, in this case is based mainly on a statement said to have been made by him and used in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. When the accused person makes a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and his statement is sought to be proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it should be clearly and carefully recorded by the Police Officer concerned in the actual words of the accused in the first person and it should not be paraphrased. If what the accused says is to be used in evidence, his own words should be proved and not a paraphrase of those words by some other persons. The same view has been taken in In re, Athappa Goundan ILR 1937 Mad 695 at p. 728 : AIR 1937 Mad 618 at p. 630 (FB). The same view has also been taken in Emperor v. Shivputraya AIR 1930 Bom 244. This has not been done in the present case. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are, therefore, se...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam @ Gagubhai Ladhabhai Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR86
V.B. Raju, J.1. The conviction in this appeal mainly rests on the evidence of Mr. Joshi, the District Co-operative Officer, Jamnagar, who made the inquiry and investigation upon being directed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jamnagar. The appellant is himself a member of the Co-operative Society. Mr. Joshi is a District Co-operative Officer. The expression 'person in authority' used in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act has to be construed liberally and widely so as to include any person who can interfere in the matter of the prosecution of the accused. In this view, Mr. Joshi, the District Co-operative Officer, Jamnagar, must be held to be a person in authority with respect to the accused, who is a member of the Cooperative Society, particularly because Mr. Joshi was investigating the case upon the orders of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Jamnagar. The same view has been taken in Reg v. Navroji Dadabhai 9 Bombay High Court Reports 358 and Emp...
Tag this Judgment!Central India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dadimajukji Bhesamia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR881
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. On July 30 1958 while respondent No. 3 Chinubhai (defendant No. 2 in the suit) was driving a motor car bearing registration No. BYA 9887 belonging to the second respondent Kanubhai (defendant No. 1 in the suit) the car caused severe bodily injuries to respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff in the suit) which are said to have permanently incapacitated him. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a suit being Suit No. 86 of 1959 for damages against the 2nd respondent the owner of the car and the 3 respondent who was at the time driving the car. On the City Civil Court being established in 1961 the suit stood transferred to that Court and was renumbered as Suit No. 299 of 1961. During the pendency of that suit a notice under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939 was issued against the petitioner company and the fourth respondent company. The petitioner company had issued an insurance policy in favour of respondent No. 3 Chinubhai in respect of a Hudson car bearing regi...
Tag this Judgment!Arethia Sava Vishram Vs. Mah Hari Bhuva
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj222; (1966)GLR396
(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the order of the Second Additional sub-Judge, Rahpar in Execution Application No. 41 of 1956 holding that the execution application filed by the respondent was maintainable and should proceed according to law. The appellant who was the creditor of the respondent -debtor obtained an award in his favour under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act on 16th February 1955. The award provided that on payment of the amount awarded, the appellant should deliver possession of the mortgaged field to the respondent-debtor. The respondent paid the amount and demanded possession of the field and then applied in execution of the award to get possession of the mortgaged field. Thereupon the appellant raised various objections to the application in execution and the main ground of his objection was that the award which was sought to be executed was not registered and that therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Sam. M. Haeems Vs. Samson J. BenjamIn and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR87
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 to this petition filed a suit, being Summary Suit No. 1462 of 1962, on December 12, 1962 for the recovery of Rs. 35,000/- said to have been advanced to the petitioner and respondent No. 3. According to respondents 1 and 2 these moneys were advanced from time to time on the request of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, and the aforesaid advances were made by cheques, drafts and sometimes in cash. Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 took out a summons for judgment on January 31, 1963. In answer to that summons, the petitioner and the third respondent filed their respective affidavits in reply. The summons for judgment came up for hearing on February 28, 1963, when the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, passed an order granting conditional leave to defend provided that each of the two defendants, namely, the petitioner and the third respondent, furnished to the satisfaction of that Court adequate security in the sum of Rs. 32,000/-. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Arun Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR241(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the Commissioner raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 15C of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in its application to a registered firm. It arises out of an assessmet made on the assessee, a registered firm, for the assessment year 1961-62the corresponding account year being Samvat year 2016. The assessee at all material times carries on business of extracting oil from oil-crakes and the oil-mill of the assessee was admittedly an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 15C. In the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee claimed that out of its total income which was determined at Rs. 5,24,081, a sum of Rs. 94,392 was exempt from tax under section 15C on the ground that it represented profits derived by the assessee from the industrial undertaking to the extent of 6 per cent. of the capital employed in the undertaking. This claims was allowed by the Income-tax O...
Tag this Judgment!Dayalbhai Madhavji Vadera Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR551(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This reference involves a short question as to the construction of section 16(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The question arises out of the assessment of the assessee, Dayalbhai Madhavji Vadera, a non-resident individual, for the assessment year 1958-59, the corresponding previous year being the year ending March 31, 1958. The assessee income arose from property, interest, dividends and a share in registered firm carrying on business in the name of the Terrance Nilgiri Tea Estate Co., Naduvatam, Ootacamund. The income of his wife, Prabhakunvarbai, and his minor son, Rasikchand Dayalbuhai, who were also non-resident, form interest and share in the aforesaid firm used to be included in the assessee's total income under the provisions of section 16(3). The assessee had other partners along with him in the said firm and all those partners like the assessee were also non-residents. The assessee and his wife and each a 10/100 share, while his minor son, the said Rasik...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Gopaldar Varandmal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR76; (1965)IILLJ636Guj
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand of a case passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1961, on 7 August 1963, on his reversing the decision of the trial court disposing of the suit upon a preliminary issue. The issue was as regards the maintainability of a civil suit for damages by a workman in a civil court in respect of an injury to his eye resulting from the alleged negligence of his employer and the persons appointed by the employer to provide timely and efficient medical aid for treatment of the injury received by the workman in the course of his employment, when the workman had allegedly instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Judge has found that the suit as framed was maintainable and his finding is based mainly on the ground that the suit was one for damages suffered by the workman as a result of the negligence or want of care on the part of the employer and the do...
Tag this Judgment!Jitubha Kalyansang Vs. Parmar Ranubha Narsangji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR480
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. Can a member of a Taluka Panchayat elected under Section 14(1)(B)(iii) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, VI of 1962, offer himself for co-optation as a member of that Panchayat and be co-opted, and furthermore, after such co-optation, can be in exercise of his right to vote cast two votes in an election for the office of the President of that body under Sub-section (2) of Section 14? These are the two questions arising in this petition.2. The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of the Pandevra Gram Panchayat in Muli Taluka in District Surendranagar, and as such became an ex-officio member of the Muli Taluka Panchayat under Section 14(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Respondent No. 1 was elected as a member of the Muli Taluka Panchayat, respondent No. 3 herein. He having been elected by and from amongst the Chairmen of the co-operative societies operating within the taluka, was declared elected on March 2, 1963 under Section 14(1)(B)(iii) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 is a co-opted memb...
Tag this Judgment!Chhabiladas Mangaldas Vs. Luhar Kohan Arja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj7; (1965)GLR893
(1) The only question which is raised in this Second Appeal is about the correctness of the decision recorded by the two Courts that the instruments, dated 30th December 1951, was a promissory note within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (XI of 1899). (Hereinafter called 'the Act') and as such, inadmissible in evidence plaintiff Appellant brought the suit from which the Second Appeal arises, for recovering a sum of Rs.769-4-0 from defendant - respondent. The claim was based on the aforesaid document dated 30th December, 1951. When the document was sought to be got admitted in the trail Court, defendant raised an objection that as the document was a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2 sub-section (22) of the Act and as it was not stamped a required by Art.49 of the act, the same was not admissible in evidence under S.35 of the Act. This contention was upheld by the trail court and, on that finding, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed plaintiff preferred an appeal to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »