Gujarat Court February 1975 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Natverlal D. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1975
Reported in: (1975)16GLR768
C.V. Rane, J.1. This judgment will govern the disposal of criminal appeal Nos. 785 of 1973 and 786 of 1973 the facts of which are similar to a great extent and which involve a common question of law.2. The respondent Natverlal D. Shah is a partner in Shri Mahalaxmi Board and Paper Mill, hereinafter referred to as the Mill, at Bulsar. When the factory inspector Harshavadan Jethabhai Patel visited the above mill on 2-12-1972 which is a factory under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, he found that, no urinal or latrine was provided for the workers in the factory premises. He, therefore, filed two separate complainants against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in each of the two cases and being aggrieved by his order, the State has come in appeal to this Court.3. Criminal appeal No. 785 of 1973 arises out of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate i...
Deepak Printery Vs. the Forward Stationary Mart and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR338
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A dispute between two rival manufacturers of calendar date-pads (Dattas) has given rise to this appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit claiming copyright in the date-pad manufactured by him and complaining of infringement on the part of the respondents-defendants was dismissed by the learned judge presiding other 6th Court in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. By his judgment and order dated June 15, 1974. The appeal arises from a suit of 1972 which has been expedited by reason of the fact that even though the respondents-defendants have succeeded in the trial court, they have been restrained by way of interim injunction from manufacturing the date-pads. It has been expedited because if the appellant-plaintiff fails to establish that he has a copyright, a temporary copyright for an interim period cannot be granted by the court by granting an interim injunction restraining the other side from manufacturing date-pads which he has a right to manufacture in case there...
Metallica Products Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1975
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT146(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This petition is completely concluded by our earlier decisions in Special C.A. No. 780 of 1970 decided on April 28, 1971 where I spoke for the Division Bench consisting of both of us. In that decision this metallised yarn in the form of thin stripes of laminated polyester film was, on a harmonious interpretation of both the entries 15A (2) and 18, by keeping them in their respective fields, without cutting down the import of entry 15A (2) or without widening the scope of entry 18, had been held to fall specifically under item 15A (2) and not under entry 18, synthetic yarn relating to fibrous yarn only. When an attempt was made to distinguish this decision followed even in the context of plastic yarn in Special C.A. No. 509 of 1969, decided on June, 22, 1971, where I spoke for the Division Bench consisting of myself and S.N. Patel J. in the later group of Spl. C.A. No. 791 to 795 of 1972 decided on December 6, 1975 where I spoke for the Division Bench consisting of myse...
Umedsinh Vakmatji Jadeja and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Guj11; (1975)GLR572
Desai, J.1. This matter has been referred to us because of the difference of opinion in respect of the construction of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Justice Surti in Criminal Revn Appln No. 509 of 1974 decided on 13-11-1974 (Guj) took the view that under the provisions of Section 167 of the Code the accused must be automatically released on bail and the circumstance that the police subsequently submitted a charge-sheet to the Court need not come in way of the accused being so released. Justice Trivedi in Criminal Revn. Appln. No, 516 of 1974 decided on 3-12-1974 took the view that if the charge-sheet was filed pending an application of bail under Section 167 of the Code, the accused cannot be said to be in detention under the provisions of Section 167 of the Code and that no order could be passed to release him on bail under proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of S. 167 of the Code and the Court has to exercise discretion under the p...
Harilal Jeram Singala Vs. Dharamsi Kanji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1975
Reported in: (1977)18GLR64
D.P. Desai, J.1. The present petitioner (original defendant) was a monthly tenant of the suit house in Veraval since before 1955-56 in 1955-56 he constructed a house in the same town and thereafter let it out to different tenants from time to time. The last letting, it appears was in the year 1961. The suit house came to be purchased from its original owner by the opponents in the year 1963. Admittedly in the year 1955-56 and subsequent thereto till January 1, 1964, the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Saurashtra Act') was applicable to the suit premises. It was from January 1, 1964 that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act') came to be applied. Under Section 13(1)(L) of the Saurashtra, Act, a landlord became entitled to recover possession of any premises to which the Act applied, if the Court is satisfied that the tenant after the coming into operation of the said Act h...
Umedsinh Vakmatji Jadeja and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1975
Reported in: (1975)16GLR572
A.D. Desai, J.1. This matter has been referred to us because of the difference of opinion in respect of the construction of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Justice Surti in Criminal Revision Application No. 509 of 1974 decided on November 18, 1974 took the view that under the provisions of Section 167 of the Code the accused must be automatically released on bail and the circumstance that the police subsequently submitted a charge-sheet to the Court need not come in way of the accused being so released. Justice Trivedi in Criminal Revision Application No. 516 of 1974 decided on December 3, 1974, took the view that if the charge-sheet was filed pending an application of bail under Section 167 of the Code, the accused cannot be said to be in detention under the provisions of Section 167 of the Code and that no order could be passed to release him on bail under proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code and the Court h...
National Cloth Printing Works, Ahmedabad and anr. Vs. the Union of Ind ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1975
Reported in: 1987(29)ELT884(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners in this petition challenge the impugned orders of the respondent - authorities refusing to refund the duty of Rs. 57,576.20 P. for the period from April 24, 1962 to July 12, 1962. The refund claim was rejected by the order, dated September 18, 1964 at Annexure D and the appeal and the revision having been dismissed by the orders at Annex. F and G dated July 4, 1967 and October 5, 1972 and as the division was not reviewed, the present petition was filed. 2. The petition is based on a complete misconception of an analogy from the earlier exemption notification scheme. The original notification No. 21, of 1961, dated March 1, 1961 had provided in the relevant table proviso that if the duty had already been paid at the rate applicable to the varieties specified in column (2) of the table appended below, the fabrics specified in column (3) thereof shall be exempt from so much of duty as was in excess of the duty specified in column (4) thereof. The relevant ...
Saiyad MahiyuddIn @ LyakathussaIn SaiyedhusaeIn Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR1177
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A very interesting question which appears to be res integra has been raised in this First Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit claiming a declaration that he was a Citizen of India and a consequential injunction restraining the respondents (State of Gujarat and Union of India) from deporting him out of the Territories of India has been dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that during his minority he went to territories which now from part of Pakistan before the enforcement of the Constitution of India and thereby migrated from India to territories now forming a part of Pakistan.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant-plaintiff was born in Gulbarg situated in Hyderabad Deccan in the year 1936. Now, having regard to the provision embodied in Clause (a) of Article 5 of the Constitution of India, a person who is domiciled in the Territory of India and who was born in the Territory of India is a Citizen of India. In the present case the par...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›