Gujarat Court July 1969 Judgments
Mohmad Khan Jamiyatkhan Vs. Dadamiyan Mohmadmiyan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj77; (1970)GLR595
ORDER1. The petitioner, who claims to be the tenant of three Survey Numbers 463/2, 467 and 479 at village Sonasan, Taluka Prantij, challenges in this petition the order of Revenue Tribunal dated March 17, 1969, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the revision application confirming the order of the Prant Officer dated November 5, 1965, ordering summary eviction of the petitioner from all these lands under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'. These three lands were purchased by Respondent No. 1 in May, 1946. It appears that the petitioner's brother had surrendered these lands on March 25, 1957, and this surrender was verified by the order of the Mamlatdar under Section 15(2) of the Act on April 2, 1957, and was confirmed by the Collector or May 12, 1958. Thereafter respondent No. 1 applied in 1958 in the Mamlatdar's Court for injunction in respect of Survey No. 463/2. The petitioner was found to be in possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR935
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the construction and effect of Section 117 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968, and Section 116 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. On 29th 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 Section 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 The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently repealed by the Defence of India Act, 1962 on 12th December 1962 but by virtue of the saving provision, the Defence of India Rules, 1962 were continued in force. On 9th January 1963, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Defence of India Act, amended the Defence of India Rules by introducing Part XII-A comprising Rules 126A to 126Z (hereinafter referred to as the Gold Control Rules). Rule 126A,...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Prabhudas Dwarkadas Vs. Dholasan Gram Panchayat, Dholasan and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj9; 1971CriLJ212
Vakil, J.1. This Special Criminal Application is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana given under his revisional jurisdiction under Section 271 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 confirming the order of the Nyaya Panchayat at Lich village in Mehsana Taluka whereby he dismissed the Revision Application of the present petitioner against the order of the Nyaya Panchayat whereby the Nyaya Panchayat had convicted him for an alleged offence for having violated Section 93 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and ordering him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- and further ordering that if he did not fill up the gap made for putting in a door within ten days then a fine of Rs. 2/- per day from 18th February, 1967 be levied and further that the Panchayat should take necessary steps to fill up the gap of the door. The short facts leading to this order are as follows:-The petitioner is a resident of village Dholasan in Mehsana Taluk...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Khodabhai and Co. Vs. R. Prasad, Collector of Central Excise a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR765
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are Messers A.K. and Co. who are tobacco merchants and doing business at Vadod, District Kaira. Some common questions of law and facts arise in both and they can be dealt with together in this judgment. In these petitions, the petitioners challenge orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise whereby certain goods of the petitioners are ordered to be confiscated and fine and penalties have been levied. They also challenge the respective orders passed by the Central Board of Revenue in appeal filed against the orders of the Collector as also the orders of the Government rejecting the Revision Applications filed by the petitioners. It will be convenient first to refer to the facts of the Special Civil Application No. 348 of 1965.2. On the 6th of February 1960, Central Excise Officers went to the petitioners' non-duty paid warehouse at Vadod. The account books and the stocks of unmanufactured tobacco were checked. The offic...
Tag this Judgment!Harisingh Harnamsingh Khalsa Vs. E.F. Deboo and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Guj349; (1969)GLR769
ORDERJ.B. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition challenges under Articles 226 and 227 the order of respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, dated July 20, 1968, suspending the petitioner's licence for a firearm till the cases mentioned in his order were decided. 2. The petitioner was issued a licence for a revolver on May 15, 1949, which was from time to time renewed and it isvalid upto Dec. 31, 1970. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on June 15, 1968, by respondent No. 1, informing him that on inquiry it was found that the petitioner was practising medicine without a certificate for carrying on medical profession and that he was giving threats to kill his landlord because of disputes with him and that it was learnt that in 1948 there was a case against him for dacoity between Abu and Marwar. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to show cause why his licence should not be suspended under Section 17(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Balwantrai Chunilal Bhatt and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj175
Vakil, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the notification dated 19th December 1957 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the urgency clause and also notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 5th of August 1958 issued without complying with the provisions of Section 5-A thereof. The petitioners are owners and occupants of land bearing S. Nos. 217-A and 448 of Rajpur-Hirpur admeasuring 4 acres 23 gunthas and 0 acre 17 gunthas, respectively. The 2nd respondent-Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, passed a resolution No. 630 of 1957 dated 20th November. 1957, regarding acquisition of the lands of the petitioners together with other lands for the project of slum clearance, housing and road. Consequent upon the resolution, the then Government of Bombay was moved to take proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of the said survey numbers along with others...
Tag this Judgment!Arvindbhai Motibhai Patel Vs. Hargovind Parshottam Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj20; 1971CriLJ368
J.M. SHETH, J.1. This is an appeal filed by a Food Inspector of Bhavnagar Municipality against the acquittal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar, Mr. D. A. Chhaya, in a Criminal Case No. 860 of 1965 in favour of respondent No. 1 (who will be hereinafter referred to as the accused). The accused was prosecuted for allegedly selling adulterated honey. He was prosecuted for an offence punishable under State. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act No. 37 of 1954) which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleging that the accused had sold adulterated honey on 25th June, 1965 to the Food Inspector, Bhavnagar. It was taken for the purposes of analysis. At the time the sample was taken, the accused had declared that the honey sold by him to the complainant was purchased by him from Khed-Brahma Madhu Udyog Kendra, Ahmedabad and in support of that version of his, he had produced some original...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Bhudarbhai Soni Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj171; 1970CriLJ1100; (1970)0GLR776
ORDER1. This revision application arises out of a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500, Indian Penal Code which was filed by the opponent No. 2 herein named Prabhudas Bhogilal Dudhwala in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 7th Court, Baroda, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 77 of 1966. The complainant opponent's case is that the accused, who is the applicant herein, was staying as a tenant in his house. The accused had, on September 10, 1965., made an application against the complainant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) for taking out chapter proceedings against him. The case was registered as Chapter Case No. 632 of 1965. In that application made in Gujarati, several wild and reckless defamatory imputations were made against the complainant, with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. It stated, inter alia, that the present complainant Prabhudas Bhogila...
Tag this Judgment!Vajesing Mathursing and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1969
Reported in: 1971CriLJ157
ORDERN.G. Shelat, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order passed on 30-3-1967 by Mr. N. K. Bbarvad, City Magistrate, 10th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 541 of 1964, whereby the 'gambling-muddamal' is ordered to be confiscated to the State.2. The prosecution case wa3 that Room No, 37 in Shivprasad Chawl, Ahmedabad was in occupation of one Babusing Medasing and that he was running a common gaming house therein. Mr. B. F. Jadeja, the Police Inspector raided that room on 12.12.1963 under a general Authority given to him Under Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, hereinafter referred to m 'the Act', by the then Commissioner of Police Mr. Ramayer. On a search made thereof in presence of Panchas, acme article3 said to be a record con' taining beta and slips etc. were found. Beside', in one tin Rs. 1.964-95P. were found# On a search made of the person of Babusing Ra. 65/-were found, and Rs. 14-55P. were found on the person of Vajesing Mathursing, ...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Kharade and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj157; 1970CriLJ1090; (1970)0GLR781
Desai, J.1. Both these matters have been referred to a Division Bench by our brother Sarela, J., on account of the questions of law raised. The order in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 95 of 1969 which is challenged before us was passed by Mr. D. J. Dave, as Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol on 17-12-68 and the order in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 102 of 1969 was passed by Mr. M. P. Thakar, Special Judge, Ahmedabad City, on 28-2-1969. These two orders were passed in Special Case N. 5 of 1968 and Special Case NO. 15 of 1968 pending before the respective Special Judges.2. In Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 95 of 1969, the facts are that the Government appointed Mr. D. J. Dave, Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Naol, to be a Special Judge for the District of Ahmedabad (Rural) to try the offnces specified in Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, by notification dated June 30, 1966. Then by notification dated May 13, 1968, Mr. D. J. Dava was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »