Gujarat Court October 1967 Judgments
The State of Gujarat Vs. One Deaf and Dumb Man
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ328
ORDERJ.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhrangadhra. Mr. K.H. Banker, under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a Criminal Case No. 330 of 1967.2. The facts leading rise to this reference are briefly stated as under:One Ala Raja, a labourer, had gone with his wife Prembai Natha and his cousin sister Dani Bhana and other labourers of Dhandhuka for labour work to the village Kuda, Taluka Dhrangadhra, They worked there as labourers for about 22 days and had returned from Kuda to Dhrangadhra Railway Station by a night train and were waiting in the third class passenger hall on the night of 16.5.1967 for catching train for Dhandhuka which was to leave that station in the early hours of 16.5.1967. The complainant and his wife and other passengers were there with their kit. Except the complainant, other members of the party were sleeping. The accused-opponent was also sleeping nearby the complainant's wife's feet. At about 3-00...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Pandya Mohanlal Ugreshwar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1665; (1969)GLR58
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, camping at Himatnagar, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the order passed by the learned Taluka Magistrate, Bhiloda in a Chapter Case No. 3 of 1966 on 23.9.1966, be get aside.2. The facts leading rise to this reference are briefly stated as under.A proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been taken against one Pandya Mohanlal Ugreshawar of Bhiloda. That proceeding was pending in the Court of Taluka Magistrate, Bhiloda. In that proceeding, on behalf of the opponent, an application was given that the opponent be supplied the copies of the statements recorded by the Police Officer, who had initiated that proceeding during the inquiry that he made, before the witnesses were examined in the said proceeding before the Taluka Magistrate. The learned Taluka Magistrate directed the complainant to furnish the copies of such statements to t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Pandya Mohanlal Ugreshwar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1967
Reported in: (1969)10GLR58
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, camping at Himatnagar under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the order passed by the learned Taluka Magistrate, Bhiloda in a Chapter Case No. 8 of 1966 on 28-9-1966, be set aside.2. The facts leading rise to this reference, are briefly stated as under:A proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been taken against one Pandya Mohanlal Ugreshawar of Bhiloda. That proceeding was pending in the Court of Taluka Magistrate, Bhiloda. In that proceeding, on behalf of the opponent, an application was given that the opponent be supplied the copies of the statements recorded by the Police Officer, who had initiated that proceeding during the inquiry that he made, before the witnesses were examined in the said proceeding before the Taluka Magistrate. The learned Taluka Magistrate directed the complainant to furnish the copies of such statements to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomad Usman Gulam MohiuddIn Vs. Dhanshanker Jagannath Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1967
Reported in: (1969)10GLR374
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a revision application under the Bombay Rent Act (Bombay Act No. 57 of 1947). The petitioner is original defendant No. 1, who was, according to the plaintiff, a monthly tenant of the plaintiff. On 18th July, 1960, a notice was given to defendant No. 1 terminating his tenancy on the expiry of 31-7-1960. On 28th July 1960, defendant No. 1 entered into what is alleged to be a partneship deed (Ex. 34) with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for carrying on business. Both the Courts below held that the partnership deed is a sham and colourable document, that it was in reality no partnership deed and there was unlawful transfer of possession of the premises. In this view, both the Courts below decreed the possession to the plaintiff. Hence this revision by the original tenant.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the finding that the partnership deed is not real and genuine is not correct. It is further contended that before 31st July 1960 the tenancy ...
Tag this Judgment!Jadeja Mahipatsinh Bhavubha and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ255; (1968)GLR903
ORDER1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this case as per order of the Session Judge, Rajkot.Aggrieved by that order the petitioners have presented this application for transfer of the case back to the Sessions Court at Rajkot. The application was later on amended and was allowed to be treated as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made by the petitioners in substance is that the case be sent back to the Court, viz., the Sessions Court at Rajkot which was directed to try that case under the orders of this High Court.2. The contention made out by Mr. Hathi, the learned advocate for the petitioners, is that on a plain reading of the order passed by the High Court, it admits of no scope for the learned Sessions Judge to transfer the case to the Court at Gondal and that, according to him, it was transferred to the Covirt at Rajkot meaning thereby that the case was to be tried by that Court at Rajkot. As against that, it was urged by Mr. Sompura, the learned Go...
Tag this Judgment!The New Swadesi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. Vs. S.K. Rattan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR364
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, preferred by the New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Limited against respondent No. 1 who is the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, New Delhi, respondent No. 2 who is the Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Fraud Squad I, New Delhi and respondent No. 3 who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation at Ahmedabad for quashing the orders passed under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for return of documents seized and removed by the respon dents from the premises belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner is a textile manufacturing Company having two textile mills at Ahmedabad, viz. the New Swadeshi Mills and the Manjushri Textiles. According to the petitioner, on the morning of 15th June 1967, the first and the second respondents accompanied by Inspectors and panch witnesses came to the petitioner's New S...
Tag this Judgment!Harnamsing Lalsing Vs. Gangaram Itchharam
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR323
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This revision application raises an interesting question of protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in case of a tenant in whose case the dispute about standard rent raised by him in the reply to the notice under Section 12(2) has been resolved by the Court only at the time of the judgment and who is not in arrears on that day. Both the lower Courts had held that the present case was covered by Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. The lower appellate Court had further held, in the alternative, that the tenant was not entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. On that basis as both the Courts have passed a decree of eviction against the tenant, the tenant has filed the present revision application.2. Turning first to the question of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act it is clear that in the present case the most important ingredient of that section viz. that there must ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Indumati Ratanlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1967
Reported in: (1968)0GLR765
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of an assessment made upon the assessee as an individual for the assessment year 1962-63, the relevant account year being the calendar year 1961. The assessee's husband, Ratanlal, died on 17th January, 1957, leaving a will under which he bequeathed one-half of his estate to the assessee and the other half to his minor son, Pankaj. The estate consisted mostly of shares and securities but there was also an immovable property situate in Ahmedabad which belonged to the estate. Since the estate estate passed on the death of Ratanlal, estate duty became payable on the principal value of the estate under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act and such estate duty came to Rs. 2,78,979-87. Ps. In order to pay this estate duty, the assessee, on behalf of herself and her minor son, Pankaj, raised an aggregate loan of Rs. 2,78,000 from the Bank of India Ltd. and the Central Bank of India Ltd. and the estate duty was paid in different amounts on diverse da...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Mrs. Arundhati BalkrishnA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR203(Guj)
DIVAN J. - In this reference under section 27 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following four question have been referred for the opinion of the High Court.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the life interest of the assessee in the Ahmedabad trust was a right to an annuity, the terms and conditions relating to which precluded the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant and as a consequence had to be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the life interest of the assessee in the two Bombay trusts to the extent of one-half of such interest was a right to an annuity, the terms and condition relating to which precluded the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant and as a consequence had to be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the life interest of the assessee in the two Bombay tr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Mrs. Indumati Ratanlal.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR353(Guj)
BHAGWATI C.J. - This reference arises out of an assessment made upon the assessee as an individual for the assessment year 1962-63, the relevant account year being the calendar year 1961. The assessees husband, Ratanlal, died on 17th January, 1957, leaving a will under which he bequeathed one-half of his estate to the assessee and the other half to his minor son, Pankaj. The estate consisted mostly of shares and securities but there was also an immovable property situate in Ahmedabad which belonged to the estate. Since the estate estate passed on the death of Ratanlal, estate duty became payable on the principal value of the estate under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act and such estate duty came to Rs. 2,78,979-87. Ps. In order to pay this estate duty, the assessee, on behalf of herself and her minor son, Pankaj, raised an aggregate loan of Rs. 2,78,000 from the Bank of India Ltd. and the Central Bank of India Ltd. and the estate duty was paid in different amounts on diverse dates...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »