Gujarat Court February 1967 Judgments
Modi Dahyabhai Ambalal and anr. Vs. Jayantilal C. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ829; (1967)GLR768
ORDERShelat, J.1. Mr. Desai, the learned advocate for the applicants, contends that the additional sample bottle kept by the complainant was required to be so sent, on a complaint filed against them, and the accused making a request to the Court for having it be analyzed by the Director, and the Court was wrong in compelling the accused to produce the sample bottle given to them for that purpose. The accused has a right to take alternative defence putting the complainant to the proof of all the ingredients of the offence said to have been committed by them. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out relevant part of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. Section 11(1) of the Act is as follows:(1) When a food inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall-(a) give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analyzed to the person from whom he has taken the sample;(b) except in special oases provided by rules under his Act separate the sample t...
Tag this Judgment!Desai Navinkant Kesarlal and ors. Vs. Prabhat Kabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR694
N.K. Vakil, J.1. This is a group of 12 Special Civil Applications Nos. 88 to 99 of 1964 wherein facts are similar and common questions of law are raised, and will all be dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment. All the petitioners in this group of petitions are Ex-Inamdars of Khandoli village in Kalol Taluka of District Panch Mahals. The Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952, was applied to this inam village in 1955. But before that, Record of Rights was prepared and was promulgated on the 29th April 1954. It is the case of the petitioners that a large number of tenants of the petitioners were arbitrarily shown as 'permanent tenants' in the said record of rights even though they could not be held to be 'permanent tenants' within the meaning of the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and the 12 tenants who are opponents Nos. 1 in the respective petitions before us were also entered as permanent tenants in the said record of rights. On behalf of the petitioners this...
Tag this Judgment!Thakkar Ramanlal Shivlal Vs. Thakkar Himatlal Ranchhoddas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR553
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The short question which arises in this Revision Application is whether the case is governed by Section 12(3)(a) or Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The dispute in this Revision Application relates to certain premises situate in Padra which were let out by the plaintiffs to the defendant on 5th April 1957 at a contractual rent of Rs. 60 per month. On 8th October 1959 the defendant made an application for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises and whilst the application was pending, the plaintiffs gave a notice dated 24th April 1960 terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The defendant was in arrears of rent from 11th June 1959 and the plaintiff, therefore, also gave another notice dated 29th November 1959 calling upon the defendant to pay up the arrears of rent. The application for fixation of standard rent was thereafter decided by the learned Civil Judge and by an order dated 28th March 1961, the le...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Karsandas Vs. Bedi Gram Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR956
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also purports to be under Article 227 of the same Constitution, which challenges the levy of an octroi by the Gram Panchayat, Bedi, who is respondent No. 1. Petitioner is a grain merchant, doing his business at Bedi, which was formerly a part of the territory of the former Saurashtra State. During the Saurashtra regime, the village of Bedi was a part of the territory of the municipal borough of Jamnagar, and was governed by the Municipal Boroughs Act. During that regime, however, there was in force Saurashtra Ordinance No. 57 of 1949 (hereafter called the Ordinance), which regulated the constitution and affairs of the Gram Panchayat (hereafter called the Panchayat). Section 41 of the Ordinance conferred power on Panchayats to levy, inter alia, taxes mentioned in Schedule J 'in accordance with, at the rates and subject to exemptions prescribed. ' Section 53 of the Ordinance conferred power upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Madhavlal Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ567; (1968)GLR963
ORDERN.G. Shelat, J.1. The facts giving rise to these two applications in revision before this Court broadly stated are that one Hasumati's marriage was settled with accused No. 1 on or about 13.12.65 at Ahmedabad and a writing in that respect came to be executed by him in favour of Hasumati. In that writing, in addition to certain terms agreed to between their, it was stated that the accused No. 1 was not married, and that in those circumstances their marriage took place on the next day. She then lived with her husband-accused No. 1 and had even sexual intercourse. Sometime after, Hasumati came to know that her husband was already married before and that his first wife was living. That led her to lodge a complaint before the police in respect of offences under Sections 417-420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were said to have abetted the commission of the said offence as it was through them that her marriage with accused No. 1 was brought about...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Jethanand Kundomal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1356; (1968)GLR1031
ORDERN.G. Shelat, J.1. The two accused Lokumal and Lilaram reside its of Ahmedabad were released on bail on furnishing security in a sum of Rs. 1,500/- with one surety for like amount for each of them in Criminal Case No. 752 of 1964, by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, P.C. at Narol The inquiry was over on 25.1.1965 and he committed them along with two other accused to stand their trial before the Court of Sessions. At the time of commitment, all the four accused applied for being provisionally released on bail under Section 220 of Criminal P.C., so as to enable them to again an order for their release on bail from the Sessions Court, Narol. The committing Magistrate passed the order as under:Each of these 4 accused is ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,500/- with one like surety and on his under taking to bring the necessary order from the Sessions Court, Narol, regarding bail within a period of one month that is 30 days.In pursuance thereof, the oppon...
Tag this Judgment!Vijakumar K. Shah Vs. Firm of Pari Nareshchandra and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj247; (1968)0GLR238
Bhagwati, J. (1) This revision application is directed against an order passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, granting leave to the first defendant to defend the suit on condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000 within two weeks from the date of the order. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to recover a sum of Rs. 2,000 being the amount due under a cheque dated 22nd September 1963 drawn by the second defendant in favour to the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The cheque was delivered by the first defendant to the plaintiff on 11th September 1963 and against the cheque the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 2, 000 to the first defendant. The cheque was thereafter presented by the plaintiff for payment on 22nd September 1963 but the cheque was dishonored by the Bank by non-payment. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit to recover the amount due under the dishonored cheque together with interest and costs. The suit was filed as a summ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaiyalal Chimanlal Mody Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ541
Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 30-7-1965 by Mr. C.H. Vasayda City Magistrate, 7th Court Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 1389 of 1964 whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 or, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 4 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the 'Order' respectively).2. On receipt of some information from the Controller of the Iron, Steel and Cement Commodities for the Ahmedabad Region, Mr. Ghatalia, the Assistant Controller accompanied by Mr. Rawal, the Supervisor, working in that office, and two police constables went to Khamasa Gate, in Ahmedabad at about 3 p. m. on 19-6-1964. They stopped their jeep car and after taking the panchas with them, they went to the shop of the accused. The ac...
Tag this Judgment!Firm of Mohanlal Narottamdas and anr. Vs. Bechardas Khusaldas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR620
M.U. Shah, J. 1. This is tenants' revision application against a decree of ejectment from the suit premises consisting of one big room and a shed at its back, passed by the learned District Judge, Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1961. The decree was passed on the finding that the plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal use. By this decree, the learned District Judge has reversed the decree of dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit that was passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Surat, in Regular Civil Suit No. 482 of 1959. The suit was instituted on June 15, 1959. The plaintiffs in the suit were the present opponent Bechardas Khushaldas and the opponent's mother Bai Mahali, since deceased. The defendants in the suit were the present applicant No. 2 (defendant No. 2) Mohanlal Narottamdas and present applicant No. 1, the Firm of Mohanlal Narottamdas, in which name the applicant No. 2 has been carrying on the business.2. I...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavlal Parbhudas Chokshi Firm and ors. Vs. Manubhai I. Vyas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj223; (1968)GLR177
Bhagwati, J. (1) The question which arises in this Revision Application is whether R. 142 to 148-A of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules are ultra vires the rule-making power of the High Court. The plaintiff filed a suit being Summary Suit No. 1548 of 1966 against the defendants in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, to recover a sum of Rs. 7,734.07 ps., alleged to be due by the defendants to the plaintiff as remuneration for services rendered by the plaintiffs to the defendants in connection with their income-tax work. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit and on an appearance being filed by the defendants, a summons for judgment was taken out by the plaintiff. On the summons for judgment the learned Judge of the City Civil Court made a conditional order granting leave to the defendants to defend the suit on condition that the defendants deposited a sum of Rs. 1,900 within two weeks. The defendants were aggrieved by this order and they, therefore, preferred the present Revision Applicat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »