Gujarat Court January 1974 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.
Chenaji Chaturji Parmar Vs. Ajitkumar Ujamshi Khanderia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1340; (1975)GLR304
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J.1. Simple and innocent on the face of it, what it appears, it is not. This is true both of the question which has surfaced as also of the identity of the petitioner who has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter called 'the Code'). The question raised is whether the High Court should interfere and quash the order passed by the Sessions Court according its consent to the withdrawal from prosecution on the part of the Public Prosecutor (in exercise of powers under Section 494 of the Code). This withdrawal is from a prosecution pending against 24 workmen of Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited (for brevity's sake referred to as the 'Company') who have been subsequently dismissed from service and one of the office bearers of a Trade Union to which the said workers belonged. And consent has been accorded in the interests of industrial peace. The petitioner is a Security Officer of the Company who is said t...
D.N. Dholakia and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Guj209; (1975)GLR103
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. These two petitions are directed against the assessment made by the Rajkot Municipality for the year 1972-73. Special Civil Application No. 285 of 1973 has been filed by eleven petitioners who are tax-prayers of Rajkot Municipality, Special Civil Application No. 287 of 1973 has been filed by four petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 is Rajkot Tax-prayers' Association. The facts of both cases are the same and therefore, same questions arise in both of them for our determination. We, therefore, proceed to decide them by a common judgment.2. Rajkot Municipality is constituted and functioning under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. Section 99 of the Act empowers the Municipality to impose a tax on buildings or lands situate within the municipal borough. Rajkot Municipality has framed Rules for the purpose. They came into force on 1st January 1965. The aforesaid tax is to be based on annual letting value or capital value or percentage of capital value of the buildings or ...
Arunkumar Pritmalal and anr. Vs. Ramanlal Shagubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj73; (1975)0GLR61
1. This appeal is directed against the decree Passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in civil suit No. 547 of 1963 on 20th April 1966. The facts of the above suit were in brief as under. Two houses bearing survey Nos. 364/l/2 and 32 and two Plots of land bearing survey Nos. 363 and 662 were purchased by the ancestors of the Plaintiff Ramanlal Bhagbhai from one Bai Jakal, the widow of Tarachand Laxmichand under the sale deed executed by her on 13th June 1898. The aforesaid survey numbers 364/1/2, 363, 662 and 32 were subsequently renumbered as survey numbers 354-A, 355, 356 and 357 respectively. The house bearing survey No. 357 was subsequently sold to Dolatram Nagindas on 29-5-1900. The Plaintiff is now the owner of the prodder bearing survey Nos. 354-A, 355 and 356. Bal Samrath, who was the widow of Dolatchand Nagindas bequeathed house bearing S, No. 357 to the Pathshala and Panch of Cusa Parekh's Pole by her will dated 8-3-1945. Neither Dolatchand nor Bai Samrath ha...
The New Brahma Kshatriya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Govindl ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj178; (1974)GLR689
ORDER1. The appellant in second Appeal No. 497 of 1963 has made this application for restoring the appeal to file. It was dismissed by me for default of appearance on 19th July, 1972. While doing so, I made a speaking order because I thought that there were unusual circumstances which required a reasoned order.2. I made the following order:'This appeal was placed before me for final hearing and disposal on 19th June, 1972 when the Court reopened after Summer Vacation. It was placed first on Board. On that day an application was made to me for adjourning the matter in order to enable the parties to bring about a settlement. The appeal is more than nine years old. Very reluctantly, therefore, I granted the adjournment for -a week. On 26th June, 1972 when this appeal was again placed on Board, no settlement was produced before me nor were the learned advocates ready to proceed with it. They made again a pressing application for granting an adjournment in order to enable the Parties' to se...
Jayantilal Purshottamdas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1345; (1975)GLR253
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The appellant was a poor employee who was being paid Rupees 125/- per month by his employer who was engaged in the business of manufacturing Exercise Books, 15 days before his wife delivered a child, he is alleged to have committed a theft of rolls of paper worth Rs. 104/- from the shop. He was prosecuted in this connection. The learned trial Magistrate found him guilty, convicted him under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. The sentence in default of payment of fine was of the order of 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial Magistrate.2. So far as the finding of guilt is concerned, no exception can be taken thereto having regard to the evidence at length on record. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence as I concur with the view of the learned trial Magistrate and as, in my op...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›