Gujarat Court March 1970 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.
Panalal Balabhai Zaveri Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR350
B.J. Divan, J.1. This Special Civil Application raises an interesting question regarding the interpretation of Section 13 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner herein is the owner of a tractor and a trailer; the tractor bears registration No. G J A 4240 and the trailer bears registration No. G T A 9788 It is the contention of the petitioner that the tractor and the trailer are designed and were used solely for agricultural operations on the farm and farmland and he contends that as such they are exempt from the payment of any tax under the provisions of the Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had applied for and was granted exemption for a further period of one year along with the registration books but he did not receive any reply from the R.T.0. No decision of the R.T.0. was communicated to him nor was he informed that his application for exemption was refused. Under the belief that the period of exemption mus...
Muman Hasanali Mohmadali Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj72; 1971CriLJ469
ORDER1. In Criminal Case No. 529 of 1967 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Harij, the applicant-accused came to be convicted for offences under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. While he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month for an offence under Section 304A, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days for an offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was, besides, convicted for an offence under Section 116 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and no separate sentence was passed of the same. Against that order passed on 24th July 1968 by Mr. J.S. Dasondi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Harij, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1968 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mehsana, who, co...
Vikyamal Dakumal Vs. Prakashsing Atmasing and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj128; 1971CriLJ702
ORDER1. This application in revision is directed against an order passed on 10-9-1969 by Mr. B. N. Doctor, City Magistrate, 10th Court in Criminal Case No. 1368 of 1969 whereby the complaint came to be dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The opponents Nos. 1 and 2 are the Police Constable and the Police Sub-Inspector respectively and they were attached to the Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad. The petitioner-complainant has been doing cloth business in Panchkuva Sindhi Market at Ahmedabad. According to him as about 6-00 p.m. on 26-6-69 while he was having a cycle repaired at a cycle shop near Kalupur Gate, the Police Constable opponent No. 1 asked him to accompany him to the police chowkey without giving any cause. He was not then in his police uniform dress. The complainant thereupon inquired from him as to the cause for taking him to the chowkey. As a result thereof, he lost his temper and dragged him to the police chowkey by catching hold of his 'Jhabba...
Motibhai Narshibhai and ors. Vs. Jivti Bhagwanji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR35
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners who were the old partners of Ambica Pottery Works at Morvi challenge in this petition the order of the Labour Court dated April 7, for computing the benefit of notice pay and retrenchment compensation due to respondent No. 1 and which is ordered to be paid by the petitioners. The petitioners carried on the business of this concern namely Ambica Pottery Works in partnership. The said concern was taken over on November 1, 1965 in an auction sale in a running condition by respondents Nos. 3 to 10 who constituted the new firm. Respondent No. 3 was common to both the old and the new firm. After the concern was thus taken over the respondent No. 1 workman applied to the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to have her dues under Section 25FF computed on the ground that this transfer of the undertaking to the new partnership amounted to retrenchment and she was not paid any retrenchment compensation The petitioners-old partners-as ...
The Dabhoi Municipality, Dabhoi, District Baroda Vs. V.R. Nayak and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj203; (1971)0GLR260
Divan, J.1. The petitioner herein is the Dabhoi Municipality functioning under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The first respondent is the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Baroda and the second respondent is the Co-operative Credit Society of the employees of the petitioner Municipality. The petitioner employs a large number of municipal servants and pays salaries or wages to those servants. It is legally liable to pay the prescribed salaries or wages to its servants. Some of the employees of the petitioner are members of the second respondent Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The Society advances loans to its members and the members agree to pay back the loans thus advanced to them by monthly instalments. At the time when the loan is advanced, the member to whom the loan is advanced agrees that if he fails to pay the instalment which falls due at the relevant time, the amount of the loan or the instalment may be recover...
J.R. Vakharia and Sons. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Kantilal Tejaji Pa/H H of Fulcha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: (1970)11GLR1069
S.N. Patel, J.1. Second Appeal No. 90 of 1965 is filed against the judgment and decree in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1964 decided on 11th December 1964 by the learned District Judge, Broach. The respondent-judgment-creditor obtained a money-decree in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1961 against the appellant-judgment-debtor. The Judgment-creditor filed Regular Darkhast No. 24 of 1964 for execution of the aforesaid decree and prayed for appointing a receiver to collect rents of the properties of the judgment-debtor in possession of the tenants to satisfy the decree. The Darkhast was resisted by the judgment-debtor on several grounds. One of the objections of the judgment-debtor was that immovable properties in possession of tenants were not attached, rent from the tenants was possible future income of the immovable properties in possession of the tenants and, a receiver of possible future income of immovable properties not attached could not be appointed. A receiver could be appointed on...
Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. Vs. Sanalal G. Patvi (Deceased by His Legal Heir ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR117
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner herein is a Limited Company and the Company is running a Textile Mill at Wankaner in Rajkot District. The petitioner Company is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The original first respondent, who died during the pendency of these proceedings was working as an Assistant Spinning Master with the petitioner Company. On October 25, 1962, the original first respondent was discharged by the petitioner-Company and it was an order of discharge simpliciter. One month's pay in lieu of notice was given and there was no show-cause notice nor any enquiry before this order of discharge was passed and, according to the petitioner Company, this order was not by way of punishment and it was not a punitive discharge. On October 29, 1962, the original first respondent asked that the reasons for his discharge should be furnished to him; but no reply was given to this demand On November 3, 1962, the original respondent sent what is kno...
Patel Amba Natha Vs. Patel Virji Devji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: (1970)11GLR1003
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed against the defendant Civil Suit No. 10 of 1959 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Manavadar for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from opening doors and windows abutting on the Fali belonging to him. The plaintiff owns a house in village Sanosara which consists of two rooms on the northern side and a kitchen and Osri on the southern side. Between its northern and southern parts there is an open Fali which separates the two parts. The defendant's house is situate to the south of the plaintiff's house. The defendant was opening doors and windows in his house which would abut on the Fali of the plaintiff.2. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the Fall belonged both to the plaintiff and the defendant. In the alternative, he pleaded that the Fali was a piece of public land. Upon these two alternative pleadings he contended that he had a right to open doors and windows abutting on the Fali.3. The learned Tr...
Bachubhai Bababhai Vs. Ratilal N. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj206; 1971CriLJ1320; (1971)0GLR660
ORDER1. The applicant-accused owns a house S. No. 2123 situated in Astodia. Rangati Bazar, within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. Since there was no water closet attached to that house, a notice dated 20-8-66 was issued by the Municipal Corporation requiring him to put up a water closet in his house under Schedule Chapter 9, Rule 11 (1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). He failed to carry out the directions given in that notice with the result that he came to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Schedule Chapter 19, R.2 (b) read with Schedule Chapter 9 rule 11 (1) of the Act. He was convicted of the said offence by the Court of the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 10-8-67 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- for the same. On 15-2-68 the Sanitary Inspector Shri Shah Ex. 3 visited the place and found that the accused had not yet put up any water closet as required. Since he failed to ...
Diwan Kalusha Ahmedsha and ors. Vs. Mr. Vanikar, Collector of Kaira
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-1970
Reported in: (1970)11GLR1009
P.D. Desai, J.1. This petition is directed against an order dated February 17, 1965, passed by the Collector of Kaira, who is the respondent herein, under Section 39(1)(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. By the said order, the respondent directed that a sum of Rs. 500/-, being the deficit stamp duty, and a further sum of Rs. 1500/-, being the amount of penalty, be recovered from the first petitioner who had allegedly presented an insufficiently stamped instrument of gift for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Anand.2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated. One Bafatisha Jivasha was the original owner of an open plot of land bearing survey No. 12435/1-2, admeasuring 32 Gunthas, situate in Anand, District Kaira. In or about 1956-57, two building each consisting of 15 single-room tenements were constructed upon the said open plot of land. By an instrument dated January 15, 1958, Bafatisha Jivasha made a gift of one of the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »