Gujarat Court January 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Jivraj Khimji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR935
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal broadly stated are that a complaint dated 14-4-64 was filed by the P. Section I. Lakhpat on behalf of the State against the respondents for the offences under sees. 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, (XIX of 1929) in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nakhatrana in the District of Kutch. That appears to have been received by the office of the learned Magistrate on 17-4-64, The complaint was registered and the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the summons to issue against the accused referred to therein on 2-5-64. The allegations in the complaint show that all the accused had brought about and solemnised a child marriage at the village Dayapur. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the father and mother respectively of the bridegroom who was below 18 years of age at the time of his marriage and that way a 'child' as contemplated under Section 2(a) of the Act. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the father and ...
Khimchand Hargovandas Shah Vs. Ganchi Valibhai Gababhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR895
V.B. Raju, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the Appellant for possession of a Ghabhan (building site) in the Village Masar Road. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Divison) Padra, District Baroda and was No. 26 of 1958. After the suit was filed Part II of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House (Control) Act, 1947 (Bom. Act LVII of 1947) was applied to Masar Road as when the Act was enacted, it was not applied area. But subsequently on 23rd October 1958, the State Government extended Part II of the Act to the village Masar Road. Both the below have held that in view of the provisions of Section 12 in Parti I Act, the suit was liable to be dismissed and thereupon dismissed the suit.2. The Appellate Court relied upon Section 50 of the Act which as follows:50. The Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, and the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, are hereby repealed: Provided that all suits and proceedings between a land...
Haroobhai M. Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR597
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These five petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 491(l)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act No. V of 1898). Each of the five petitioners was ordered to be detained by a separate order dated December 29, 1964, by the State of Gujarat. The orders are in identical terms. By those orders, the State of Gujarat directed, under Clauses (1) and (4) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, (hereafter called 'the Rules') that petitioners be detained in the Rajkot Central Prison. The orders stated that the State Government was satisfied in regard to the five petitioners that it was necessary to detain them with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to (i) the defence of India; (ii) the public safety; and (iii) the maintenance of public order. The orders are signed by the fourth respondent. In accordance with these orders, the five petitioners were arrested on December 30, 1964, and, since then, they ar...
Kanbi Poker Teja Ladha Vs. Thakar Kheraj Bhanji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR766
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal is against the finding of the first appellate Court that a particular transfer dated 8th October, 1953 by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 was fraudulent on the creditors.2. It is contended that the view taken by the lower appellate Court that the transfer is void under Section 40 of the B. A.D.R. Act is wrong. This view is no doubt incorrect because it only makes void the transfers by a debtor and not by a person who is alleged to be a debtor and the finding clearly is that he is not a debtor.3. It is next contended that the suit should be filed on behalf of the creditors. This contention is not correct in view of Section 53 of the T. P. Act. But the plaint, particularly para 4 thereof, and the prayer clause do show that the suit was filed on behalf of all the creditors. It appears that no permission of the Court was taken for filing such a suit as required by Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code and no notice was given as stated in tha...
Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Ltd. Vs. D.R. Kohil and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj29
Shelat, C.J. (1) Prior to march 1, 1961, only cotton fabrics were under entry 19 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, chargeable to excise duties therein set out. By Finance Bill of 1961, item 18A was inserted in that Schedule and accordingly cotton yarn amongst other Articles became chargeable to excise duty at the rate of 30 naye Paies per kilogram in respect of yarn of less than 35 counts. By a trade notice bearing No. 16 of 1961 dated March 6, 1961, the Central Excise authorities notified that the aforesaid duty at the prescribed rates would be leviable on cotton yarn, twist, thread, ect., with reference effect from the midnight of February 28 and March 1, 1961, the trade c also made to clear that the duty on yarn would be in addition to the duty cotton fabrics and that yarn used in the weaving section of a factory by itself shall be assessed to duty before its issue to the weaving section. It appears that owing to certain difficulties felt by the author...
Gulam HuseIn Jivabhai Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR280
V.B. Raju, J.1. This second appeal is by the original plaintiff, who filed a suit to set aside an order of the Prant Officer Dholka, holding that the suit land belonged to the Government. It is admitted that the suit was filed one year after the order and the date of the appeal. But it is contended that a revision application was filed and that the suit was filed within one year from the date of the decision of the revision application. Section 37(3) of the Land Revenue Code reads as under:Any suit instituted in any Civil Court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or, if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of any order passed by the final appellate authority, as determined according to Section 204, shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is in...
Saggar Gagu Dhula and anr. Vs. Sangar Abhram Vela and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR532
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of Bhagwati J., recorded in Second Appeal No. 13 of 1964 by which the learned Judge dismissed summarily that Second Appeal. The learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 raises a preliminary point and that is that the Letters Patent Appeal does not lie under the circumstances of this case. In order to decide this preliminary point, it is not necessary to state the facts relating to the merits of the case. It will be enough only to mention a few facts which have a bearing on the preliminary point. The Letters Patent Appeal arises from out of Civil Suit No. 37 of 1961 which was instituted by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandvi, Kutch. The learned Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition in that suit. Appellants, defendants. Nos. 1 and 2, preferred Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1962 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kutch at Bhuj...
Jivanji Malaji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj159; 1967CriLJ884; (1966)GLR960
ORDER(1) The other point raised by Mr. Barot relates to the learned Magistrate having not followed the provisions contained in S. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as he did not put questions with regard to the evidence and the circumstances disclosed therein so as to enable the accused to explain the same. If one turns to the further statements of the accused, each of them has been asked no doubt a general question about his having heard the prosecution evidence led in the case and whether he had to say anything in the matter. All of them have replied by saying that he produces his written statement. It appears that the written statement was produced by accused No. 1 and it is AIR 1967 GUJARAT Ex. 42. The rest of the accused have stated in reply to the question put by the Court that he admits the contents of the written statement filed by accused No. 1 and that he has put his thumb impression thereon. Now, it is not that there is any bar to the accused putting any written st...
Alubhai Mujatbhai Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR698
N.G. Shelat, J.1. This Appeal arises out of an order passed on 21-9-64 by Mr. K. H. Damani, City Magistrate, 10th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 178 of 1964, whereby the accused-appellant came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, or, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for an offence under Section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act.2. The charge against the appellant-accused was that on or about 3rd of October 1963, while 'he was in service as a letter-box peon in New Civil Hospital Post Office at Ahmedabad, he opened postal articles in course of transmission contrary to his duty, and wilfully detained or delayed the said postal articles and thereby committed an offence punish able under Section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act.3. One Shri Mangubhai Nanubhai Desai who was working as an Investigating Inspector in the office of the Post Master General at Ahmedabad, on receipt of some information regard...
Bashir Ahmed Hafiz Mehbub Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-02-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR786
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These two petitions raise a common question of law and are based on similar facts. Therefore, we are pronouncing this common judgment which will dispose of both the petitions. The petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 28 of 1965 is Bashir Ahmed Hafiz Mehbub. Petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 30 of 1965 is Hamid Ahmed Hafiz Mehbub. In both the petitions, the first respondent is the State Government and the second respondent is I.C. Sheth, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narol. Petitioners pray that an order, dated 22nd July 1965, to be presently mentioned, passed by the second respondent in a criminal proceeding against each of them should be quashed and that the second respondent be directed to dispose of the application, below which the order is passed in both the criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.2. The facts giving rise to these two petitions are as foll...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›