Gujarat Court March 1968 Judgments
Jatashanker Fulchand Mehta and ors. Vs. Mavji Trikam and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj169; (1969)GLR600
Mehta, J. 1. Thfs appeal raises an important question which is referred to the Division Bench by our learned brother Sheth, J. as to the correctness of the ratio of the decision of Shah J. in Harilal Bhagwanji v. Shastri Hamshanker Umiashankar. AIR 1958 Bom 8, that when a possessory mortgage and a lease back to the mortgagor formed part of the same transaction, the lease being a mere device to secure interest, is not legally enforceable and that it does not create any relationship of landlord and tenant. 2. The short facts which have given rise to this appeal are as under :-- 3. The plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased Jatashanker Fulchand while tha defendants are the heirs of one Mavji-Trikam. The said Mavji Trikam had executed a registered mortgage deed. Ex. 10, for Rs. 2250/- in favour of the said Jatashankar Fulchand and by a contemporaneous document of a registered rent note at Ex. 5 of the same date possession was sought to be delivered to the tenant. The rent which was payab...
Tag this Judgment!Babusing Jodhasing Jamadar Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj324; (1969)GLR998
ORDERN.G. Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 26-9-67 by Mr. B.N. Doctor, City Magistrate, 10th Court, Ahmedabad, in Summary Case No. 50 of 1965 whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for ten days for an offence under Section 332 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days for an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the other offences for which he came to be charged he has been acquitted.2. One Shri Kantilal Bapalal Mody, an Advocate and a receiver appointedby the City Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 806 of 1961, filed a complaint Ex. 1 against the accused-appellant in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Manherlal H. Barot Vs. Ravji Jadav and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR453
B.J. Divan, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the Bagasara Municipality, through its Sanitary Inspector, and the respondents are the State of Gujarat and the original accused. This appeal arises under the following circumstances:2. The accused in this case is a vendor of ice and he was standing at a particular spot within the limits of Bagasara Municipality selling ice from his hand-cart or hand-lorry and when he was selling ice to his customers, the Sanitary Inspector asked him to remove the hand-lorry and when the accused refused to remove the hand-lorry, it was got removed by the Sanitary Inspector; and thereafter the accused was prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of Section 185(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, being Gujarat Act No. XXXIV of 1964. The learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C, Bagasara, who tried the case, held that the accused was not guilty of the offence under Section 185(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and thereafter the Bagasara Municipali...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati (L.N.) and anr. Vs. Prabhakar Madhavrav Jambekar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: (1969)GLR84; (1969)ILLJ317Guj
1. The facts giving rise to this petition, broadly stated, are that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the general manager and the service Engineer, respectively, of the Indequip Engineering, Ltd., Ahmedabad. The Indequip Engineering. Ltd., has been manufacturing and supplying machines such as drying range machine to various industrial concerns. One such machine was supplied to the Aruna Mills, Ltd., in Ahmedabad. After supplying the same, that machine was erected and handed over to the Aruna Mills, Ltd., on 2 May 1967 as per the specifications and other terms and conditions mentioned in the correspondence exchanged between the two companies. Respondent 1 has been working as the manager of the Aruna Mills, Ltd., and respondent 2 was working as a sales representative of the Indequip Engineering, Ltd. 2. At about 3-55 p.m., on 1 June, 1967, an accident took place in the bleaching department of the Aruna Mills, Ltd., which resulted in injuries to three workers employed in the said mills. That le...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Amrutlal Shodhan Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj108; (1970)0GLR208
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition challenges the validity of certain provisions of the Gold Control Rules 1963. On 26th October 1962, simultaneously with the Declaration of Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution, the President promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962, pursuant to S. 3 of the Defence of India Ordinance, the Central Government made the Defence of India Rules 1962. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently repealed by the Defence of India Act, 1962 on 12th December 1962 but by virtue of the having provision, the Defence of India Rules, 1962, were continued in force. The Defence of India Act was passed, as its Preamble shows, to provide for special measures to ensure the public safety and interest, the defence of India and civil defence and for trial of certain offences and for matters connected therewith. Section 3, sub-section (1) read as follows:'3. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazettee, make such rules as appear to...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmad YasIn Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj267; 1969CriLJ1133; (1969)GLR847
ORDERN.G. Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 20-2-68 by Mr. N. M. Chhaya, City Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad, in Chapter Summary Case No. 12 of 1968 whereby the appellant has been directed to be detained in jail fop a period of the bond or till he furnishes the security under Section 123 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, since he failed to furnish the security as directed by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 15-1-68. He was directed to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- for a period of one year with one surety for good behaviour under Section 109 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The appellant was found on the platform No, 7 in the early morning at about 5-30 a.m. on 5-1-68 moving from one compartment to the other of the Patan Local. One Parshottam Thobhan of Bhavnagar and some other persons pointed out this appellant to the police. The police made some enquiries from him and as he could not explain his presence at the platform by about that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratia Mohan Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj320; 1969CriLJ1401; (1969)GLR985
N.G. Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 20-1-68 by Mr. B. N. Doctor, City Magistrate, 10th Court, Ahmedabad, in summary Case No. 1915 of 1967 whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months for an offence of possessing 60 drams of liquor without pass or permit on 27-2-67, under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'.2. The point made out by Mr. Divatia, the learned Advocate appointed for the appellant-accused was that the order of conviction and sentence passed againstthe appellant is illegal and void inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has not recorded the judgment in the case and thereby contravening the mandatory provisions contained in Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. It appears on a perusal of the proceedings of this case that on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›