Gujarat Court April 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.
Ratilal Jivan Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj124; 1971CriLJ611; (1971)0GLR343
ORDER1. This reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Junagadh in respect of a proceeding falling under Section 488 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has raised a pointed question. That question is whether husband has to prove sufficient cause for not complying with the order or monthly allowance passed under sub-section (1) of Section 488 or wife has to prove absence of sufficient cause before the order is enforced by way of arrest and detention of husband in jail under sub-section (3). This question has arisen in the following facts of this case: -2. The wife obtained an order for monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 30/- against the husband payable to her from 1-7-1968. Direction to pay this monthly allowance was not complied with for a period of 12 months. Therefore, on 15-7-1969, the wife gave an application to the learned Magistrate stating that the total arrears of monthly allowance payable to her for a period of 12 months are ...
Shashikant Gopaldas and Co. and anr. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj278; (1971)0GLR308
M.U. Shah, J. 1. These are two companion appeals, which involve a common question of law of some importance and are directed against a common judgment delivered by the learned Judge, 5th Court of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, on January 16, 1962, in Compensation Cases Nos. 143 and 144 of 1961, which were references made to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. References before the learned trial Judge were made against the orders of compensation passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, awarding inadequate compensation to the present appellants, who were the claimants before him for their interest in compensation as tenants of the premises on the lands which were compulsorily acquired. The question that seems to have been principally agitated before the learned trial Judge in the compensation cases related to the claimants' right to compensation in relation to the premises which were ...
Patni Ali HusseIn and anr. Vs. Mustafamiyan Ajammiya and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj247; (1970)11GLR930
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees in Regular Civil Appeals Nos. 41 and 42 of 1960 decided by Mr. K.R. Marjadi, learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under Kali Mustafamiya Ajammiya is the common plaintiff in both the suits. Civil Suit No. 182 of 1958 against. Patni Ali Hussein of Patan and Patni Karim Hussein of Patan and Regular Civil Suit No. 183 of 1958 against Ghanchi Hasan Abhram of Patod were filed by the plaintiff for recovering possession of agricultural lands, more particularly mentioned in the plaint, which had been allotted to him as Gharkhed lands under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff was the Barkhalidar and the defendants were his tenants. With the enforcement of the provisions of the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 the relationship of the Barkhalidar and the tenants which had been subsisting between the plaintiff on one hand and the defenda...
Atul Products Ltd. Vs. D.R. Kohli, Collector of Central Excise, Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1970
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT8(Guj)
1. The petitioner company, Atul Products Ltd. challenges in this petition the various orders and notices issued by the excise authorities seeking to reopen the assessment on the petitioners' products in question by including the packing charges for the purpose of levy of excise duty on the Coal Tax Dye stuff became excisable goods. The petitioners company manufactured Coal Tar Dye Stuff. These dye stuffs fall into two categories. As far as the Ciba Atul Dye Stuff is concerned, the know-how was supplied by the Ciba of India Limited, Bombay hereinafter to as 'Ciba' and on its specifications, the company supplied these dyes at agreed prices. The sole purchasers from the company of these Ciba Atul Dyes were the Ciba India Ltd. As far as the Atul Dyes are concerned, they are manufactured as per that company's own specifications and Ciba is only one of its purchasers not exceeding 3% of the Atul Dyes manufactured by the petitioner company. The company is supplying these dyes in bulk packings...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›