Gujarat Court March 1966 Judgments
Jagat Bandhu Jyotindra Mohan Roy Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1230
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant gave an affidavit along with his petition of Habeas Corpus under Section 491 of the Criminal P. C., and he is prosecuted under Section 193 of the Penal Code in respect of some statements contained in that affidavit, which, according to the prosecution, are false and not true to the belief of the appellant or false to his belief. The appellant has been convicted under Section 193 of the Penal Code. It is contend-ed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Section 476 of the Criminal P. C., does not apply to this case in view of Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A, Criminal P. C. Sub sections (1) and (6) of the said section are important and they read as follows:(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in 8s. 476 to 479 inclusive, when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Banwarilal Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ280; (1967)GLR551
V.B. Raju, J.1. One Banwarilal has been prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Kalol, for an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that he sent goods to a merchant at Kalol and the arrangement was that he should take 75 per cent of the value of the goods from the branch of the Baroda Bank at Bareli on the production of a railway receipt and a bill. The prosecution-case was further that a false bill was presented by the accused and an excess amount was taken from the said Bank by the accused. He is, therefore, said to be guilty of cheating. Even, if the Bank of Baroda at Bareli be taken to be the agent of the complainant, even then the offence of cheating would take place only at Bareli and not at Kalol because anything that was done at Kalol would amount to a false representation. Any letter written to Kalol would amount to a false representation. It was not suggested in the complaint that any letter was wri...
Tag this Judgment!Shivlal Amarji and Sons Vs. Maganlal Lakhmichand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR802
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These two petitions involve a common question of law as to whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to order a party to produce certified copies of the account-books which were lying in the Sales Tax Department and so I am disposing both of them by this common judgment.2. In both these matters the applicant is the same applicant-firm who was the defendant in the two suits which were filed by the opponents in these two matters. The two plaintiffs had filed certain suits against the present applicant-firm on the basis of certain Vahies alleged to have been given to the plaintiffs on behalf of the applicant-firm by the manager of that firm who was related to these two plaintiffs-opponents. It was the case of the applicant-firm that the accounts of the firm had been manipulated for the benefit of his relatives by the said manager, who was thereafter dismissed from service of the firm. During the pendency of the said two suits, the applicant-firm was required to discover on o...
Tag this Judgment!Taherbhai Hebtullabhai and anr. Vs. Ambalal Harilal Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR981
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioners in this civil revision application were tenants of a shop which belonged to the opponents in the town of Dholka. The shop was taken on rent as a monthly tenant in 1949 and the petitioners since then carried on the business therein of selling tools and parts of machinery. Respondent No. 1, in partnership with two other persons, was carrying on business in two shops adjoining each other. They deal in kerosene, vegetable ghee, cigarettes, match-boxes, grossery and other miscellaneous articles. They had also to hire godowns to store their goods. The respondents filed suit No. 71 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge at Dholka to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground inter alia of reasonable bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The suit was resisted by the present petitioners on several grounds. Inter alia they contended that the suit premises were not required by the landlord bona fide and reasonably for personal occupation and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Zabu Khima Vs. Amardas Balakdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj214; (1967)0GLR281
Bhagwati, J.(1) This appeal arises out of an application made by the applicant as the universal legatee of the estate of one Bechar Dunger alias Maharaj Balakdaji (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) for obtaining letter of administration with a copy of the will annexed. The deceased was originally a resident of Khoda and was carrying on worship of his Thakorji at that place. In Samvat Year 1979 he purchased land bearing Plot No. 98 admeasuring 2,000 square yards at Jorawarnager and built a temple on the said land and installed the images of his Thakorji in the said temple. He thereafter shifted to Jorawarnagar and performed the worship of Tahkorji and managed and looked after the temple. One Sadhu named Maharaj Srik Karsandasji gave him a 'Kanthi' and initiated him in the order of sadhu and since then he came to known as Maharaj Shri Balakdasji, he dedicated the land and the temple standing on it to Thakorji and carried on management of the temple and performed worship of Thakorj...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Pyarekhan Allarakhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1229
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is a revision application by the State for the enhancement of sentence passed on the opponent under Sections 3 and 4(a) of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, for having in possession and control of a motor vehicle without payment of the tax, an offence punishable under Section 16 of the said Act.2. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned Counsel for the opponent- accused that this revision application is filed directly in the High Court without it being filed in the Sessions Court, and reliance is placed on Rule 14 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, contained in Chap. XXVI of the said Rules. The said Rule 14 reads as under:In the absence of special circumstances, the High Court will not entertain an application for revision where an application for revision might have, but has not, been made to a lower revisional Court.The High Court cannot frame rules as regards the powers of the High Court. The powers of the High Court are to be fou...
Tag this Judgment!New Ahmedabad Bansidhar Mills (Private) Ltd., Ahmedabad Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR868
1. In this second appeal by the original plaintiffs the short question which rises for determination is whether the appellant-company known as the New Ahmedabad Bansidhar Mills (private), Ltd., Ahmedabad, was as claimed by it an infant factory established only on 11 March, 1954 and as such entitled to an exemption for a period of three years from the said date, namely, 11 March, 1954, under S. 16(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (herein-after to be referred to as the Act) in respect of the application of provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme framed under S. 5 of the Act. The respondents are the Union of India, the State of Gujarat, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, State of Gujarat, and the Provident Fund Inspector, Ahmedabad. The learned trial Judge found in favour of the appellant on this question and gave it a declaration that the appellant-company was not under any obligation to implement the scheme framed under the Act before 11 Marc...
Tag this Judgment!The New Ahmedabad Bansidar Mills Private Ltd. Vs. the Union of India a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj71; (1966)IILLJ503Guj
(1) In this second appeal by the original plaintiffs the short question which arises for determination is whether the appellant-company known as the new Ahmedabad bansidhar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad was as claimed by it an infant factory established only on 11-3-1954 and as such entitled to an exemption for a period of three years from the said date namely 11-3-1954 under section 16(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act No. XIX of 1952) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) in respect of the application of provisions of the employees' Provident Fund scheme framed under S. 5 of the Act. The respondents are the union of India, the State of Gujarat, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner State of Gujarat and the Provident Fund Inspector Ahmedabad. The learned trial Judge found in favour of the appellant on this question and gave it a declaration that the appellant company was not under any obligation to implement the scheme framed under the Act before 11th March 1957....
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Mansukhlal and anr. Vs. Mehta Chhanalal Ambalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj212; (1968)0GLR129
Shah, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of deceased Bai Kanta made in favour of the present respondent by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 1958 by his order dated November 5, 1959.The present respondent Chhanalal Ambalal claiming to be entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration of the estate left by his deceased wife Bai Kanta as a legatee under a registered will made by Kantas deceased mother Bai Mangu on February 18, 1941, had filed an application for the purpose. The estate is listed not in a separate schedule, but in para 4 of the application. The application was originally filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Visnagar. The grant was, however, contested by the present appellants who had lodged a caveat. The respondent had, therefore, presented the application in the Court of the District Judge, Mehsana, where it was registered as Civil Miscellaneous...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Mulji Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rajpila, District Br ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj154; (1966)GLR879
Bhagwati, J.(1) This group of appeals raises a short question in regard to payment of court-fee on an application for a reference made to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The facts giving rise to the appeals are identical and it would, therefore, be sufficient if we state the facts relating to First Appeal no. 163 of 1965. The Appellant in this appeal is admittedly a member of a tribe deemed to be a scheduled tribe in relation to the State of Gujarat under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. It appears that certain land belonging to the appellant was acquired by the State of Gujarat under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and an inquiry was held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the Appellant in respect of such acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 2nd March 1963 awarding a sum of Rs. 1378-27 Np. as and by way of compensation to the appell...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »