Gujarat Court August 1969 Judgments
Superintendent Customs and Central Excise Vapi Vs. Raichand Lakhmansin ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj223; 1970CriLJ1446; (1970)0GLR919
ORDER1. This is a reference made under Section 438 of the Criminal P.C. by learned Sessions Judge, Bulsar at Navsari, Mr. R. K. Soonavala in Criminal Revision Application No. 4 of 1969, recommending that the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umbergaon Mr. K. V. Mehta dated 5th April, 1969, to return the truck bearing No GTD 3842 to the petitioner Raichand Lakhmashi Shah on confirmation of his producing an ownership registration certificate and on his depositing Rs. 15,000/- in cash in the Court along with a bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- on a condition to produce the truck in the Court in the same condition whenever so ordered be set aside.2. The facts giving rise to this reference, briefly stated, are as under:-Raichand Lakhmashi who claims to be an owner of the truck, bearing No. GTD 3842 which was seized originally by the Mobile Anti Smuggling Staff. A.C.B. Bulsar, under the panchnama, dated 8th February, 1969, with other goods alleged to be smuggled good, filed an...
Tag this Judgment!Thakarani Shri Gumankunverba Karamsinhji and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR956
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These are cross petitions filed by the concerned Jagirdars and the State against the appellate order of the Revenue Tribunal dated December 3, 1964 disposing of an appeal against the award of compensation by the Jagir Abolition Officer, dated July 30, 1963.2. The concerned Jagirdars challenge the order of the Revenue Tribunal on the following grounds:(1) That the Tribunal has misconstrued the expression 'three multiples' in Section 11(2) of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Aboli tion) Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by treating it to mean three times the assessment instead of six times, (2) that the Revenue Tribunal committed a patent error of law in not including Bagayat Kasa as a part of assessment, (3) that the Revenue Tribunal patently erred in awarding no compensation for wells, step-wells and roads, (4) that the Revenue Tribunal erred in awarding no compensation for the river beds, (5) that the Revenue Tribunal erred in awarding ...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Oza Vs. Government of Gujarat, Revenue and Agricultural Departmen ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj39
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition challenges the order of the State Government, dated January 13, 1964, at Annexure 'C' by which he has been reverted from Gujarat Agriculture Service Class I to Gujarat Agriculture Service Class II and posted at Rajkot as Agriculture Engineer. There is no dispute that the petitioner held a substantive post in Gujarat Agriculture Service as Agriculture Engineer in Class II post. By the order at Annexure A, dated, March 7, 1963, the petitioner was promoted to Gujarat Agriculture Service Class 1 post temporarily pending availability of officers selected for this post by the Public Service Commission and from March 20, 1963 the petitioner was posted to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture. The petitioner worked about 11 months and suddenly by the impugned order at Annexure 'C', dated January 13, 1964, the petitioner was reverted to his original Class II post. It is the case of the petitioner which is not controverted that various persons mention...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Fulsinh Bimsinh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj1; 1971CriLJ41; (1971)0GLR105
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Himatnagar, recommending that the order of committing the accused for several offences under the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act), passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Idar, in Criminal Case No. 1170 of 1968, so far as it relates to offences punishable under sections 5 and 6 of the Act, be quashed. It is so recommended on the ground that the Court of Session has no jurisdiction to try the accused for the said offences, but only a Magistrate of the First Class has got jurisdiction to try the accused for the said offences. It is further recommended that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Idar, be directed to proceed further with the trial of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, according to law.2. The facts giving rise to...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Tulsidas Vs. Sayla Gram Panchayat, Dist. Surendranagar and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj96
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The petitioner is a person who had obtained a lease in respect of levy of octroi duty from the then Municipality of Sayla constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipal Act'). The lease was granted in exercise of powers under Section 81-A of the Municipal Act. The said Sayla Municipality was subsequently converted into a Gram Panchayat. The lease was for the period commencing from April 1, 1962 and expiring with March 31, 1963. It was granted by public auction and was sanctioned by a resolution passed by the Municipality on March 28, 1962. Under the said lease a sum of Rs. 30,999/- was to be paid by the petitioner to the Sayla Municipality, in respect of the octroi duty for the aforesaid period. The right to collect the amount payable under the said lease has accrued in favour of the respondent No. 1 (the Sayla Gram Panchayat) in view of the fact that the Sayla Municipality was converted into a Gram Panchayat und...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganji Khengarji and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj131; 1970CriLJ956; (1970)0GLR573
1. Common questions of law and facts arise in all these three revision petitions and hence, they are being disposed of by this judgment.2. In Criminal Revision Application No. 464 of 1966, petitioner Chhaganji was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 85(1)(3) and 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition act, 1949, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.3. The prosecution story was that on 13th March, 1966 at about 1-30 p.m. the petitioner was found drunk near the hospital in a public place in Deesa town, district Banaskantha and he had also consumed liquor without a pass or permit. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mr. N. G. Butala, in that Criminal Case NO. 380, found that the petitioner was not found under the influence of drink. He was not found intoxicated. He, therefore, acquitted him of the offence under Section 85(1)(3) of the Act. He further found that the petitioner had consumed liquor without pass or permit. In view of that finding of his, he convicte...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Bechar Narsinh Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj186; 1970CriLJ1351; (1970)0GLR834
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the original complainant (first informant) against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrol, Mr. R.C. Shah, in Criminal Case No. 268 of 1968, releasing present opponent No. 2, Maiya Dolu Kar san, who was original accused No. 2 on probation of good conduct. Opponent No. 2 hasbeen convicted of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was ordered to be released on probation under Section 5(1) of the Bombay Probation of Offenders Act, 1938 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act), on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,000/- for a period of one year with a solvent surety for the like amount to keep and maintain peace during the aforesaid period and to receive the sentence when called upon during the aforesaid period. This order was passed on 30th December, 1968. 2. Mr. G. C. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the offence under Section 326 of the India...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Jesingbhai Vs. P.J. Patel, Town Development Officer, Ahmedaba ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR1035
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. The question arising in this petition lies In a very narrow compass and turns on a true interpretation of Rule 21 Clause (4) of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955. The fourth respondent is the owner of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 662 situate in Asarwa within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. There is a superstructure on this plot of land which also belongs to the fourth respondent. A part of this plot of land together with the superstructure was let out by the fourth respondent to the petitioner about 40 years ago and since that date the petitioner is in possession of the same as a tenant. The superstructure in the possession of the petitioner consists of shops bearing Municipal Census Nos. 1202/2, 1202/3 and 1202/4. The Borough Municipality by a resolution dated 31st October 1941 declared its intention to make a Town Planning Scheme, namely, Town Planning Scheme No. VIII and after the declaration of intention was sanctioned by the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Mohansing Umedsing Vs. Dullabhbhai Jerambhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR588
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner in both these matters is the same individual and the first respondent in each of the matters was formerly his tenant in respect of some agricultural lands belonging to the petitioner. The lands are situated at Delad village in Olpad Taluka of Surat District. The petitioner is the owner of four fields bearing S. Nos. 190/1,160/1, 17774 and 187, admeasuring 4 acres and 5 gunthas, 1 acre, 30 gunthas, 0 acre, 25 gunthas and 2 acres and 7 gunthas respectively. All these S. Nos. are situated in Delad village. He is also the owner of various other S. Nos. situated in Sayan and Delad villages of Olpad Taluka. The first respondent in Spl. C.A. No. 289 of 1963 was the tenant of the lands situated in Delad village and the first respondent in Spl. C.A. No. 290 of 1963 was the tenant in respect of other lands situated in that village. The petitioner had served notices on the two tenants under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Govindsingh Ramsinghbhai Vaghela Vs. C. Subbarav and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj131; (1970)GLR897
Bhagwati, C.J.1. These petitions challenge the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The petitions divide themselves in two groups: one group consisting of Special Civil Applications Nos. 977/68, 1533/68 and 630/69 relates to lands situate in three villages, namely, Rampur, Dhori and Saroda and the other group consisting of Special Civil Applications Nos. 218/69 and 220 to 222 of 1969 relates to lands situate in village Sarendi. The facts giving rise to the two groups of petitions are a little different though most of the questions of law are common and it is, therefore, necessary to state the facts separately in relation to each group. But before we do so, we may point out one common feature in all the petitions, namely, that in each of these villages, at one time or the other, the scheme of consolidation of holdings was prepared by the Consolidation Officer and confirmed by the Settlement Commi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »