Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR1
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. Petitioner Natha Mohan has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order for quashing or setting aside certain orders, to be presently mentioned.2. The facts which require to be mentioned to dispose off the petition may, at first, be stated. We are concerned in the present petition with a land bearing survey No. 164 situated in the village Nana Ankadia, Amreli District. Bai Shanta, respondent No. 1 was, at the relevant time, the occupant of this land and Harjivandas, respondent No. 2, was its tenant. On 31st December 1956, respondent No. 1 sold by a registered sale deed that land to respondent No. 2 for Rs. 3, 000/-. However, on the same day, respondent No. 2 sold by another registered document the same land to petitioner for Rs. 6, 500/-. The Talati of the village prepared case papers in regard to these two sale transactions and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj198
Vakil, J.(1) These nine petitions belonging to a large group of 70 petitions each by a textile mill or factory, in which the General Tax was levied on lands and buildings and demanded from these several petitioners by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, has been challenged on various grounds. At the request of parties, as they involved common questions of law, all these petitions were kept together to be heard at the same time, and, if possible, to be disposed of by one judgment. However, at a later stage, after all the parties were heard on the preliminary objection raised by the Corporation, we were informed that these nine petitions raised a number of questions for determination over and above the contentions that were raised in the rest of the petitions. It was submitted by Mr. Mody and Mr. Desai, the learned advocates appearing for these petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing both for the Corporation and the State concurred that it will be expedient to deal wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)IILLJ767Guj
1. This is a revision application by the State for the enhancement of sentence passed upon the owner of a factory after convicting him under S. 63 read with S. 92 of the Factories Act for employing workers beyond time. The learned magistrate convicted him under the above sanctions, but released the convicted person after due admonition under S. 4 of the Bombay Probation of Offenders Act. 2. The learned Government Pleader contends that S. 4 of the Bombay Probation of Offenders Act should not be applied to the present case and that a convicted person should be convicted and sentenced at least to a fine of Rs. 100. Having regard to the nature of the case, S. 4 of the Bombay Probation of Offenders Act can be applied in appropriate cases. It cannot be said that though the Factories Act is a social legislation, having regard to the nature of the offences in appropriate cases, S. 4 of the Bombay Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied. I cannot see any important difference between the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR552
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code for having taken cement on a permit issued to one Shantilal. It is not the prosecution case that the appellant himself went to a cement dealer and took the cement himself. It is the prosecution case that somebody took the cement on the permit of Shantilal by personating himself as Shantilal in the books of the dealer. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant received the cement from the dealer and that he took the permit to the dealer. He cannot be convicted of misappropriating the permit even if a misappropriation would include the use of a permit. It is the case of the prosecution that the person who took cement was an agent of the appellant. Even in such a case the appellant cannot be convicted. A person cannot be convicted of a misappropriation if his agent commits an offence of misappropriation. There is also no satisfactory evidence that the person who actually wept and too...
Tag this Judgment!