Gujarat Court February 1966 Judgments
Chandulal Pitamberadas Vs. Special Lands Acquisition Officer, Eastern ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj182; (1966)7GLR889
ORDER(1) These civil Revision Application are filed against the decision of the Taxing officer of this Court holding that in the appeals filed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the applicant -appellants shall pay Court -fees not only the additional amount claimed at the excess market rate but also on the amount of 15 per cent. Solatium to be awarded on the said market rate. Sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, is the relevant provision of law with reference to which the question raised has to be answered. '7. (1) The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant'. This provision of Law requires the appellant to pay Court-fee...
Tag this Judgment!Nandiram Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj80; 1967CriLJ483; (1966)GLR866
ORDER(1 to 5) * * * * *(6) That takes me to the other application which is directed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 20-2-1965, below Ex. 6 in the case. The learned Magistrate also the learned Sessions Judge appear to have been carried away by the impression that as the motor came to be attached from the custody of the accused No. 1, it has to be returned to him during the pendency of the trial subject of course to such conditions as may be laid down by the Court. However, the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that ordinarily when any property such as the motor vehicle is attached or seized by the police, one has to consider the effect of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for dinging out the true claimant before passing orders relating to such property during the pendency of the proceedings under section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 20-2-19675 for issuing process against accused No...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuj Borough Municipality Vs. Joshi Karunashankar Danji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR487
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal is by the Bhuj Municipality against which an injunction is granted restraining it from constructing public latrines on the suit site, which is admittedly a municipal property. The lower Courts have failed to go into the question whether a legal duty was cast upon the Municipality to construct public latrines. Section 68 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, provides that it shall be the duty of every municipality to make reasonable and adequate provision for, amongst other things, the construction of latrines, privies, urinals and drains. When this is the legal duty of the Bhuj Municipality, it cannot be said that all legal redress for damage resulting therefrom is precluded, provided every reasonable precaution has been taken to avoid detrimental consequences. It is true that the duty cast is subject to make reasonable and adequate provision. Simply because it is the duty of the Municipality to provide for urinals, it does not mean that it should prov...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantrao Laxmanrao Sahane and anr. Vs. Sanghvi Amritlal Becharlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR840
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Civil Revision Application raises an interes question of law relating to the interpretation of Order 40 Rule 1 Clause (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is one of some in tance as it is likely to arise frequently in cases where a receiver appointed by the Court of property forming the subject matter of suit or proceeding before it. In order to appreciate the question, necessary to state briefly a few facts giving rise to the Revision Application.2. By a partnership agreement dated 9th December 1961, the petitioners and the respondent agreed to carry on business in partnersh in the firm name of Ganesh Foundry Works. The business of the partner ship was to manufacture and prepare machinery spare parts, iron components and castings. The respondent was a financing partner who brought in a sum of Rs. 75, 000/- to the capital of the partnership while the petitioners were working partaers who did not contribute a single pie. The petitioners as working pa...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Devendraprasad Mahasukhram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1966
Reported in: (1967)0GLR395; (1966)IILLJ389Guj
Mehta, J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting question as to whether a doctor's dispensary is a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. It has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused-doctor by the City Magistrate (Municipal), Ahmedabad, on the charge for the offence under S. 52(e) of the Act read with S. 62 and rule 23(1) of the said Act. 3. The case of the prosecution was that the accused who was a doctor having his dispensary situated near Jakaria Masjid at Ahmedabad had not maintained the employment register in the prescribed form with the necessary particulars regarding the hours of work in respect of three employees working in the dispensary. The complainant, shops inspector, had visited this dispensary on 13 June, 1963 at about 9-50 a.m. and had found that even though the dispensary was registered as a commercial establishment under the Act, the employment registe...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Shanta Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj211; 1967CriLJ1140; (1966)GLR1082
(1 to 5) xx xx xx (6) Mr. Thakore, the learned advocate for the appellant, raised two contentions. The first is that in view of the Gulam Hussain's evidence at any rate, prosecution cannot be said to have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Appellant had accepted the amount of Rs. 7 for offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, as required under section 7 of the Act. The other contention is that even if that were to be held as established, on such evidence, one such incident cannot be taken as enough to hold that she was carrying on prostitution as alleged by the prosecution under section 7 (1) read with the definition of the term 'prostitution' under section 2, clause (f) of the Act. I would take up the latter point first. For considering the same, it would be essential to refer to section 7(1) as also the definition of the term 'prostitution' given in section 2, clause (f) of the Act.(7) Section 7(1) of the Act provides as under:'any woman or girl wh...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Mithabhai Madhav (Deceased by His Heirs) Vs. Patel Somabhai Moti ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR728
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this second appeal, respondents are Somabhai and Natwarbhai. During the pendency of the second appeal Somabhai died, and notice of the second appeal could not be served on him. The Learned Counsel Mr. Parikh declined to bring the heirs of Somabhai on record, and he had not argued before the Registrar that the present party on the record is the legal representative and heir of the respondent No. 1. Originally, the suit was against two defendants, namely: (1) Somabhai, Motibhai, and (2) Natwarbhai Motibhai, on the allegation that certain hedge was of a joint ownership. The suit was for an order to direct both the defendants to remove the hedge. The suit was filed against two defendants, because, they were the joint owners of the hedge. When the defendants are joint owners of a property involved in the suit, the second appeal must abate as a whole and not in part in respect of one of the joint owners only, because unless both the owners are joined as parties, the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanji Lavji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR1(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This reference relates to assessments made on the assessee for three assessment years, namely, 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the corresponding account years being Samvat years 2002, 2003 and 2004. During the relevant account years the assessee carried on business in ghee at Porbandar which was at the material time an Indian State outside the taxable territories. The Income-tax Officer, C-III Ward, Bombay, initiated proceedings against the assessee as a non-resident for the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. It appears that the assessee had a current account with the Bank of India Ltd., Bombay, and sale proceeds in respect of sales of large quantities of ghee made by the assessee to merchants in the taxable territories were credited in this current account and then transferred to Porbandar. The assessee had also a current account with a firm called Messrs. Shamji Kalidas & Company, Bombay, and in this account Messrs. Shamji Kalidas & Company paid inte...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Premji Jivraj Vs. Patel Shantilal Kanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR931
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against on order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mandvi, rejecting an application of the defendant to try the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue.Several issues were raised in the suit and one of them was whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The ground on which the defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation was that the suit was a suit for malicious prosecution and inasmuch as it was filed more than one year after the termination of the prosecution of the plaintiff, it was barred by limitation under Article 74 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Since the issue of limitation was an issue of law and if decided in favour of the defendant it would dispose of the entire suit, the defendant made an application to the learned trial Judge to try it as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff resisted the application of the defendant and c...
Tag this Judgment!Malek Chittu Rasul Vs. Pathan Mahmadkhan Kalukhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR1011
V.B. Raju, J.1. The point of law involved in this second appeal is whether the trustee of a public trust can file a suit against a trespasser for recovering possession of trust property, without the consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. In this connection, sees. 50 and 51 of the Public Trusts Act are relevant, and they read as under:50. In any case--(i) Where it is alleged that there is a breach of a public trust,(ii) where a declaration is necessary that a particular property is a property belonging to a public trust or where a direction is required to recover the possession of such property or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property or proceeds from any person including a person holding adversely to the public trust, or(iii) where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any public trust, having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »