Gujarat Court August 1966 Judgments
Keshavlal Lallubhai Narnadas and ors. Vs. Patel Bhailal Narandas and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj157; (1968)0GLR649
Bhagwati, J. 1. The short question that arises for determination is this appeal is as to the date of dissolution of a partnership constituted of the plaintiffs and the defendants. By a deed of partnership dated 4th July 1954 the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to carry on business in partnership in the firm name of National Construction Company on the germs and conditions recorded in the partnership deed. The business of the partnership was stated in Clause 1 of the partnership deed to be construction of buildings, roads, dams, canals and other structures in various parts of India and production and transport work in connection with the same. Clause 2 of the partnership deed provided that none of the partners should withdraw the amount of capital invested by him until all the construction works undertaken by the firm were completed. The partners were divided into three groups; the first group consisting of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 8 the second group consisting of defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanabhai Raiji Vs. Udesing Bhaiji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR660
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The question arising in this petition is a short one, but in order to appreciate it, it is necessary to state briefly a few facts giving rise to the petition. The petitioner was a tenant of respondent No. 3 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 491 situate in the Sim of Jambusar, Taluka Jambusar, District Broach. Respondent No. 3 terminated the tenancy of the petitioner by a notice dated 19th March, 1949 on the ground that respondent No. 3 required the land bona fide for personal cultivation. The notice was obviously given by respondent No. 3 under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) as it stood at the material time. Respondent No. 3 thereafter on 12th April, 1950 filed an application under Section 29 of the Tenancy Act before the Mamlatdar, Jambusar, for recovering possession of the land from the petitioner. The Mamlatdar by an order, dated 13th May, 1959 allowed the application and directe...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmanbhai Bhagwanbhai Sukhadia Vs. Kunkavav Vaida Taluka Panchayat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: (1968)10GLR8
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioner was elected a member of the Village Panchayat of Moti Kunkavav of Vadia Taluka of Amreli District (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat') in the year 1960. In a meeting held on the 30th of June 1960, the petitioner was duly elected as Sarpanch. Section 14 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides the constitution of the Taluka Panchayat. It consists of four categories of members. (A) Ex-Officio members and these ex-officio members are (i) the Sarpanchas of all the Gram Panchayats within the taluka, and (ii) The Chairmen of all the Nagar Panchayats within the taluka; (B) Elected members; (C) Co-opted members; (D) Associate members. We do not deem it necessary to enter into the details of the last three categories of the members of the Taluka Panchayat. Under this constitution, when the petitioner was elected the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, be became an ex-officio member of the Vadia Taluka Panchayat...
Tag this Judgment!Vafati Gokul Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR1114
A.D. Desai, J.1. This is an application filed by original 'accused in Ahmed-bad City Sessions Court Case No. 72 of 1963. The applicant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Shankar Budhi by giving him blows on his head with an iron pipe and fracturing his skull. The City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad after regular trial convicted the accused by his judgment and order of conviction dated October 14, 1963 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was defended in the said Sessions Case by his Advocate Shri K.K. Shivhare.2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction dated October 14, 1963 passed by the City Sessions Judge, the accused preferred an appeal to this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 1963. The said appeal was filed through his advocate Shri K.K. Shivhare. The appeal was fixed for preliminary hearing under Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Koli Sona Deva (Deceased by His Heirs Koli Hasur Sona and ors.) Vs. Sh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR297
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Deodar, at Sihori, for recovering possession of a land called 'Vidma Advatvalu' bearing S. No. 1186, admeasuring about 15 acres, and for other incidental reliefs, inter alia alleging that the suit land was mortgaged with him under a mortgage-deed executed by the Jagirdars of 'Vadadi Pad' of village Sihori, and that since the said mortgage was with possession, he entered into a contract with the father of the appellants on 20th July 1950 by which the latter had agreed to cultivate the mortgaged land on partnership basis. Since the plaintiff was not paid his share from the crop of the year 1953-54 certain proceedings were taken before the revenue authorities. In those proceedings it was found by the Mamlatdar that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that, therefore, no share from the crop can be given to th...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Khusaldas Gandhi and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj264; (1968)0GLR85
Sarela, J.(1) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15th March 1960 of the learned Joint Judge, Ahmedabad. The learned Judge was deciding by that judgment two compensation cases Numbers 8 and 154 of 1958 which were heard by him together. By the above order the learned Judge awarded the claimant in compensation case No. 8 of 1958 an additional amount of Rs. 2741.50 (including solatium) and the claimant in compensation case No. 154/58 an additional amount of Rs. 1780-50 (including solatium). Both the claimants have come in appeal. First Appeal No. 1033/60 is by the claimant in compensation case No. 8/1958 and the first appeal No. 1028/60 is by the claimant in compensation case No. 154/58. Both these appeals have been argued together as the evidence in respect of both the cases was led in the lower Court only in one case namely compensation case No. 8/58 and both these appeals will, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment.(2) The lands acquired in b...
Tag this Judgment!Gafur Ismail Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj275; 1967CriLJ1633
(1) The appellant was convicted under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act for contravening a notification issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, prohibiting the carrying of Rampuri knife having 21/2 inches blade. The first contention is that the notification is signed by Mr. Niranjandas, the Commissioner of Police, but the copy given to the Appellant was signed by Mr. Debu and that the copy given to the Appellant was for a different period. It is true that the copy of the relevant notification should have been given. But the irregularity is not very material, as the rest of the notification is almost identical in terms.(2) The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the notification requires the same to be published in newspapers and that there is no evidence of such publication. The Act does not require, that the notification should be published in the newspapers. What the Act requires is that the notification should be publicly promulgat...
Tag this Judgment!Kanubhai Baldevdas Desai Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ408
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant, who was accused No. 1, is an employee of Messrs. Spunpipe and Construction Co. (Baroda) Private Ltd. He was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. One Ishwar Petha, a worker died due to sandy earth having fallen on him while he was working in a pit in which drainage pipes were being laid. The pit was about 18 feet deep, 12 feet in breadth and 8 to 10 feet in length. The Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, had given a contract to Spun pipe and Construction Co. (Baroda) Private Ltd. The appellant we looking after the work done by workers for the Company. The death of the aforesaid worker occurred as a consequence of failure to provide a support of suitable shoring. The question is whether the omission to do the shoring would amount to negligence. In R. v. Haines (1847) 2 O. and K. 868, a person was killed as a result of omission to cause a coal-mine to be ventilated and noxious gases accumulated and exploded. In that case it was held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd., No. 1 and anr. Vs. Dev Ka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: 1967ACJ252; [1967(14)FLR235]; (1967)0GLR81; (1967)ILLJ186Guj
1. These two appeals arise out of a claim for compensation by the legal representatives of a deceased workman who, according to the claimants, died as a result of injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In the two matters which are the subject-matter of these two appeals, the deceased was suffering from a pre-existing disease and died during the period of working hours and therefore, the question arose as to whether compensation was claimable under S. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and under what circumstances such compensation could be claimed. The question, in other words was, whether the death could be said to have been caused on account of personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Questions such as these when the workman had a pre-existing decease such as heart diseases, pulmonary tuberculosis and died while doing some work during the hours of his duties, have often arisen in the past and have...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpathbhai Hemchand and ors. Vs. the Municipality of Chansma and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj38; (1967)GLR225
Miabhoy, C.J. (1) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are proprietors of hotels situated in the town of Chanasma. Respondent No. 1 is the municipality of Chanasma constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, (here after called 'the Act'). Respondent No. 2 is the State of Gujarat. Petitioners challenge the validity of an impost under which they are required to pay under certain rules and bye-laws to be presently mentioned a certain amount annually as a licence fee for running their hotels. Petitioners pray for a declaration that those rules and bye-laws are illegal and that a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding first respondent not to enforce them. Petitioners also pray for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said rules and bye-laws. They also pray for an injunction restraining first respondent from collecting the fee amount from any of them.(2) We may at first State a few facts which led up to the presentation of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »