Gujarat Court August 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chunilal Shivlal (by His General Power-attorney Holder Sumanlal Chunil ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR945
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application raises a question as to the true interpretation of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). The question is at what stage must a dispute as to the standard rent and permitted increases be in existence in order to repel the applicability of Section 12(3)(a). A Division Bench of this Court in Ambalal v. Babaldas (1962) III G. L. R. 625 held that on a proper interpretation of Section 12(3)(a) and the scheme of the entire section, the dispute in regard to the standard rent or permitted increases contemplated is the one which is in existence at the date of the notice under Section 12(2) or at any rate before the expiry of one month from the date of its service and not the one raised subsequently in a written statement with a view to avoiding the operation of Section 12(3)(a). But this view, it is contended, can no longer stand and must be held to be overrule...
Martand Balwant Risaldar Vs. Nathalal Bridichand and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ409
V.B. Raju, J.1. One of the questions in this criminal appeal is whether the rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Government of Gujarat are made after previous publication as required by Section 24 of the said Act. The previous publication, if any, was not made by the Gujarat Government, bat by the Bombay Government in 1959. The question is whether the previous publication by the Bombay Government would be an act of the Gujarat Government under the law and in particular under the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Bombay Reorganization Act reads as under:'law' includes any enactment ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the Stats of Bombay;Section 88 of the said Act reads as follows:88. Power to adapt laws.- For the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the State of Maharasht...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bhupendranath Bhatia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ496Guj
1. The acquittal challenged is quite correct because under S. 62 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Acts, 1948, it is only the employer who is required to maintain the register and the record and not the manager. The employer has already been convicted and so the acquittal of the manager is quite correct. Section 52 of the said Act can be applied only when the manager is convicted. When the manager cannot be convicted, S. 52 has no application. Moreover, under S. 2(16) of the Act, manager means a person declared to be a manager under S. 7. There is no evidence to show that the respondent is such a manager. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ...
Pirdhandas Parsumal and anr. Vs. Hajrabai Mahomad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: (1968)9GLR24
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. In 1947 one Shakur Haji Suleman, a Cutchi Memon of Upleta died intestate leaving him surviving his widow, the plaintiff, and his only son Sitar Haji Shakur. There was a house belonging to him situate in Upleta in which he was residing with the plaintiff until his death and after his death the plaintiff continued to reside in two rooms in the same house. Soon after the death of Shakur Haji Suleman followed the partition of India and immediately after the partition Sitar Haji Sakur went away to Pakistan. Since by reason of being resident in Pakistan, Sitar Haji Shakur was unable to supervise his property in Upleta, a notice dated 20th November 1950 was issued to him under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be declared an evacuee under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. In response to the notice a written statement dated 23rd November 1950 was submitted by the plaintiff and in the written statement ...
Dave (L.R.) and ors. Vs. Government of Gujarat (by Secretary, General ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ210Guj
ORDERMiabhoy, C.J.1. Petitioners are clerks in the Agricultural Department of the State of Gujarat. In this petition, they challenge the orders, contained in three resolutions of the Government, dated 17 February 1958, 27 July 1959 and 20 July 1960. They pray that a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus be issued, quashing the above orders and that a direction be issued to the State that their posts should be equated to the posts of senior clerks in the same department with effect from 1 November 1956. Petition is directed against the State of Gujarat, which is respondent 3, and two Secretaries thereof, who are respondents 1 and 2. 2. In order to understand the controversy between the parties, it will be convenient first to mention a few admitted facts. Before 1 November 1956, petitioners were senior clerks in the Agricultural Department of the then State of Saurashtra. In that department, the clerks were divided into two categories called senior clerks and junior clerks. The pay-sc...
Patel Maganbhi Chaturbhai and anr. Vs. the Collector, Mehsana District
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj1
Shealt, J.(1) These two appeals arise out of the judgment passed on 31st December 1959 of by Mr. H. M. Kaddri, Civil judge (Senior Division), Meshing, in Land Acquisition Reference No.1 of 1954, from which these two appeals Nos. 821 of 1960 and 822 of 1962 arise, were heard together and a common judgment was recorded. (2) Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 was in respect of compensation claimed for the land admeasuring I bigha 6 vasas out of S. No. 12 situated within the limits of Visnagar, District Mehasana, Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1954 was in respect of land admeasureing 2 bighas 14 vasas of S. No. 8 situated in Visnagar. Both the lands were notified for acquisition under section 4, sub-section (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on 30th April 1949. The possession thereof was obtained on 16-5-1949. The Land Acquisition Officer allowed compensation in respect of both the lands at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha of land and solatium at the rate of 15 per cent thereon as contempl...
Lalluram Mohanlal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj268
(1) When a property is not proved to be stolen, it cannot be confiscated and must be returned to the person from whose possession it was taken. The order of confiscation in the present case, is therefore, set aside and it is ordered that the property should be returned to the person from whose possession it was taken by the police.(2) Appeal allowed....
Vikyamal Datumal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1418; (1966)GLR1064
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned City Magistrate, IVth Court, Ahmedabad, confiscating the Muddamal Articles in Criminal Case No. 1580 of 1965, wherein the appellant, who was the original accused, was acquitted. The notification purporting to be issued under Section 4 of the Spirituous Preparations (Inter State Trade and Commerce) Control Act, 1955, by the Central Government is not in accordance with Section 4 of the said Act, which section reads as under:4. Other preparations containing alcohol may be notified as spirituous preparations.If the Central Government la satisfied, after making such inquiry in this behalf as it may think fit and after taking into account such representations as may be made in the matter, that control of interstate trade and commerce in any preparation containing alcohol other than a preparation referred to in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Section 2 is necessary in the public interest, it may, by no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›