Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)GLR786; (1967)ILLJ463Guj
Shelat, J.1. These petitions raise a short yet an important question relating to the extent and power of a labour court under S. 78(1)A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. 2. The facts leading to these petitions are quite simple. Narsinhbhai Motibhai, respondent 2 in Special Civil Application No. 456 of 1963, was serving as a clerk and that way an employee in the Manekchowk and Ahmedabad ., to be referred to hereafter as the petitioner-mills since last about 28 years. On 29 April, 1960 at about 11-40 a.m. while respondent 2 was on his duty in the office-room of the mills, the manager of the petitioner-mills happened to pass through that room, and he found respondent 2 sleeping with his legs stretched on the gadi. He had to be awakened by crying out by the cashier working in the same office-room. That led the manager of the mills to give him a notice, Ex. 8, calling upon him to explain and show cause as to why he should not be dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR729
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These petitions challenge the validity of acquisitions made by the Government of Gujarat for the construction of Gandhinagar, the new capital of Gujarat. The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical barring only the difference in the survey numbers of the lands sought to be acquired and the dates of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring such lands and it will, therefore, be sufficient to state the facts of Petition No. 1003 of 1965 which has been heard as the main petition and in which the arguments have been principally advanced. The petitioner in this petition owned at all material times several lands bearing different Survey numbers situate in village Pethapur, Taluka Gandhinagar, District Gandhinagar. By a notification dated 10th March 1965 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government notified that the said lands were likely to be needed for the public purpose, namely, construction of proposed G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)GLR413; (1967)IILLJ497Guj
Sarela, J.1. The appellant Manilal Harchand Mehta who was the accused in the lower Court was charged before the Special Judge, Kutch (Sri S. H. Sanghvi) with offences under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and S. 161, Indian Penal Code. The charge was that on or about 22 August 1964 at about 10.30 a.m. at Bhuj in Kutch district, the appellant was a public servant working as revenue circle inspector in Bhuj taluka and he directly accepted Rs. 400 from Naran Karsan of village Anandsar as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for doing an official act and thereby committed the offence of criminal misconduct in discharge of his duty punishable under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under S. 161, Indian Penal Code. He was, as we just stated, convicted under both these counts. On the first count he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of which to undergo further rigoro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj64; (1967)GLR577
Miabhoy, C.J.(1) This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are the legal representatives of one Hasabhai Adambhai. Who will be called the landlord hereafter. Respondent No. 1 is one Adam Malka, who will be called the tenant in the rest of this judgment. Respondent No. 2 is the Gujarat revenue Tribunal. Whose order dated 16th April 1962 is being challenged in this petition. The landlord was the owner of survey No. 2038, situated in Dhandhuka, district Ahmedabad, from out of which, we are concerned with an area measuring twenty acres only in this petition. Respondent No. 1 (hereafter called respondent simpliciter) was the tenant of survey No 2038. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice, dated 15th November 1956, on the ground that he required the demised premises for his reasonable and bona fide requirements. The landlord, thereafter, filed, on 198th March 1956, a tenancy suit bearing No. 3/1957 for possession of the demised pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR500
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. This is a group of twenty-three writ petitions, each of which is filed by a landholder in the city of Ahmedabad, challenging in each the validity, on the ground that a few sections of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Bombay Act No. 59 of 1949 (hereafter called the Corporations Act), are ultra vires, of a notice or notices issued by the Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereafter called the Municipal Commissioner) under Section 212 of the Corporal ions Act, requiring each property-holder to show cause why his building or buildings or a part or parts thereof, which were within the regular line of a public street, should not be pulled down and the land within the said line acquired by him. The facts giving rise to these petitions are the same in a majority of cases and are similar in others, and a majority of the questions of law raised in each of the petitions is the same and the other questions of law are simila...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj296; 1968CriLJ1549
Vakil, J. 1. The appellant and two other persons were tried as accused in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1964, for having committed various offences, in the Sessions Court of Junagadh. The other persons were acquitted of all the charges but the appellant was convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 457, 392 read with section 397 and section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous I. P. C. And to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences under section 392 read with sections 397, 304, Part II Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case was that deceased Amichand Damodar originally resided in a village called Dadar in Taluka Visavadar of the District of Junagadh and he had shifted to the village Setranj Vadala which was at a distance of about one mile from Dadar since about 4 months prior to the incident as a result of which he lost his life. He had purchased a small house and was doing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR718
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', passed on 5th June 1962.2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under:Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the landlords, (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlords'), of certain pieces of lands in Dhandhuka Taluka. The landlords had in all three tenants, Amarshi, Daud Isa and the petitioner Suleman Jijibhai. The duration of tenancy of the said tenant Amarshi was the shortest in point of time as he was cultivating the land of the landlords since 12 years; while Daud Isa and the petitioner were cultivating the lands of the landlords since 15 years and 25 years respectively. The landlords did not terminate the tenancy of the said tenant Amarshi and under Section 31(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' a notice had been given and an applic...
Tag this Judgment!