Gujarat Court December 1967 Judgments
Babubhai Prabhudas Modi Vs. Adelaji Kaluji (P.C.) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1967
Reported in: (1969)GLR676; (1970)ILLJ255Guj
Mehta, J.1. The original accused Babubhai Prabhudas Modi has filed this revision application against his conviction by the learned City Magistrate, Tenth Court, Ahmedabad, for the offence under S.. 131A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 hereinafter to be referred as the Act in that he had kept his tea-kettle in a four-wheeled hand cart and served tea to customers without a licence. The learned City Magistrate has imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 10 only and in default of payment of fine ordered the accused to under go simple imprisonment of five days. Even though the amount of fine is small, the accused has filed this revision application in the nature of a 'test case' and in view of the importance of this matter which involves a question of interpretation of the definition of the term 'place of public entertainment' in S. 2(10) of the Act, this matter has been referred to a Division Bench and that is how it has come before us. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 21 June, 1966, th...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Prabhudas Vs. P.C. Adelaji Kaluji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1967
Reported in: (1969)10GLR676
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The original accused Babubhai Prabhudas Modi has filed this revision application against his conviction by the learned City Magistrate, 10th Court Ahmedabad for the offence under Section 131A of the Bombay Police Act 1951, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' in that he had kept his tea kettle in a four wheel band-cart and served tea to customers without a licence. The learned City Magistrate has imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 10/- only and in default of payment of fine ordered the accused to undergo simple imprisonment of five days. Even though the amount of fine is small, the accused has filed this revision application in the nature of a 'test case' and in view of the importance of this matter, which involves a question of interpretation of the definition of the term 'place of public entertainment' in Section 2(10) of the Act, this matter has been referred to a Division Bench and that is how it has come before us.2. The case of the prosecution was that on 21st ...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Amritlal Thakkar Vs. Govindlal Chhaganlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR331
M.U. Shah, J.1. This is a tenant's revision application against a decree of eviction passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Nadiad, in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1964. The learned Assistant Judge has set aside the conditional part of the decree of eviction that was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaira, in Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1963 and has made it absolute. The conditional decree passed by the learned trial Judge was that the defendant was to deposit in the Court the amount of standard rent and permitted increases with costs on the appointed day, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover possession of the suit premises from the defendant on another appointed day. The facts are not in dispute. The present applicant was a tenant of the present opponent in the suit premises consisting of the first floor and the second floor of a residential house, situated In the town of Ahemadabad. The contractual rent of the suit premises was Rs. 15/-, payable by ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Jivanlal Bhimjibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR603
A.D. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat had directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar, acquitting the accused of the charge having committed an offence under Section 4 of the Bombay Lotteries control and Tax) and Prize Competitions (Tax) Act, 1958 (hereinafter erred to as the Act). Respondent No. 1 in this appeal was original; used No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was original accused No. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused No. 1 is the owner of Raj bans Benefit company (hereafter referred to as the Company) and the accused No. 2 its Manager. The Company has its head office at Ahmedabad and panches at Surat, Rajkot, Ankleshwar, Junagadh etc. The accused No. 1 1 rented a shop at Anklesbwar. The shop was situated on the station did and on the way to Goya Bazar. The shop was rented since October 28, 1963 for the purpose of running of the business of the Company Police Sub-Inspector, Ankleshwar rece...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›