Gujarat Court August 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kantaben Jayantilal Soni Vs. Ranjitlal Natverlal Soni
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR481
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Can the Collector require the Court, and whether the Court has any such jurisdiction, to recover deficit stamp and penalty in respect of a document which is not received in evidence at the trial, but which is all the same impounded and sent to the Collector on being merely produced at the trial? That is the interesting question raised in this Revisional Application preferred by the original plaintiff. It is directed against an order passed by Shri C.H. Trivedi, learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Navsari, ordering the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 498-50 as and by way of deficit stamp and the penalty of Rs. 4,985-00.2. The facts leading to this application require to be stated. In the course of the trial of Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 1964 the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Navsari passed an order impounding a document on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. It is of importance to realize that the plaintiff did not at any time make an...
Krishna Cinema and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj103
Vakil, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Rajkot dated 21st August, 1964 (Annexure 'K') refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate to the petitioners under Rule 5 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. The petitioners are engaged in the business of cine-exhibiting and own a cinema theatre at Rajkot which is run under the name of 'Krishna Cinema'. It has a sitting capacity of 600 persons. They are engaged in this business since 1948. To the north-east of the existing cinema house, the petitioners own an open plot of land and they desire to construct an annexe to the existing building on that open plot with a view to construct a second auditorium with a separate screen to exhibit cinema films; either idea being to exhibit English films continuously. On the 14th of May 1963, they made applications to the District Magi...
The Firm of Fakirchand Makandas Vs. Shri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Abhi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj145; (1970)0GLR686
1. This revision application is filed by the original plaintiff against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Surat in Special Civil Suit NO. 39 of 1966, whether by the learned trial Judge held that the suit of the plaintiff fell under the provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court-Fees Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and accordingly called upon the plaintiff to pay additional court-fees amounting to Rs. 810/-. He directed the plaintiff to pay this amount on or before 5th September 1967. The plaintiff has come in revision contending that his suit was rightly valued by him for the purposes of court-fees as it fell under the provisions of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act and that therefore, no additional court-fee was legally due from him.2. At the hearing of this Civil Revision Application, Mr. S. N. Shelat, the learned Advocate appearing for the contesting opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 contended that no revision application lies under Section 1...
Teja Moha Vs. Mangubhai Mehta and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj209; (1970)GLR883; (1970)0GLR383
1. Appellant Rabari Teja Mohan has been convicted by the learned City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 90 of 1966 for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 37 of 1954) which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Act'. He has been sentenced on this count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The appellant-accused was charged with having on or about the 5th day of August 1965 at 5-30 A.M. near Block No. 327 in Bapunagar, Rakhial at Ahmedabad, prevented Food Inspector Shri Mangulal C. Mehta from taking sample of milk from the appellant by throwing away the milk on the ground and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. The accused was tried on this charge which the learned City Magistrate has found to have been proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. It appears to be the prosec...
Gela Hira Rabari Vs. S.V. Pandya and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj235; 1970CriLJ1475
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant one Gela Hira Rabari against the judgment and order of his conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1966. The conviction is under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) for the accused having on the morning of December 31, 1965 at 9.30 a.m. sold to the complainant Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 700 M litre of cow's milk for 0.56 Paise which on analysis, was found to be adulterated. The offence was committed near the station of Maninagar in Ahmedabad. The accused-appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven months.2-3. The prosecution case as is revealed from the evidence of the Food Inspector Shantilal Vidyashankar Pandya P.W. 1 Ex. 2 is that on the morning of December 31,...
Ramanlal Chhaganlal Bhavsar Vs. P.M. Desai anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR967
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The applicant filed a criminal case No. 1264 of 1969 in the Court of the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 8-7-69 against Mr. P.M. Desai, Inspector of Police, Sherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against him are that on 1-7-69 the applicant and some others were arrested by the Gomtipur police in respect of offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Gambling Act and then taken duly hundcuffed at the Sherkotda Police Station. On that night at about 11-15 p. m. one Pravinkumar Manilal and the applicant's brother accompanied by one advocate, had gone to the Sherkotda Police Station for getting him released on bail. Mr. Pravinkumar, who wanted to stand surety for the applicant who was accused in the case, requested Mr. Desai, the Inspector of Police, that he may be released on bail as the offence was a bailable one. The case of the complainant then is th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›