Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1953CriLJ665
Chhatpar, J.1. Both the above revision applications are being dealt together, as the facts and the points of law involved in the cases are similar. Both the applicants had migrated to Pakistan and had obtained temporary permits to visit India from the High Commissioner for India at Karachi. The permits in both the cases were for three months from 30th August 1948 to 29th November 1948. On the expiry of the period of the permits, the applicants did not return to Pakistan but over-stayed at Rajkot and they were consequently prosecuted, under Section 4 of Ordinance No. XVII of 1948 (Influx from West Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1948) promulgated by the then Governor General of the Dominion of India. Section 4 of the Ordinance reads as is under:4. Penalty-Any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 3 or of any rule made thereunder shall be punishable with, imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand Rupees or with both such imprisonment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1953CriLJ926
Shah, C.J.1. This revision application involves a question of the validity of a sanction to prosecute and is filed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Sorath, setting aside the order of discharge passed by the First Class Magistrate, Junagadh, and directing that the trial of the accused should be proceeded with according to law. The applicant Ratilal Bhagvanji was a head-clerk and accountant in the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Junagadh and he was prosecuted for certain offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery etc., under a sanction obtained from the then Administrator of Junagadh State. This sanction was held to be invalid by the Magistrate, Mr. Kikani, since it had not been signed by His Highness the Rajpramukh and the accused was thereupon discharged, A sanction was subsequently given by His Highness the Rajpramukh on 11.10.1949 and same was later amended by an order dated 8.2.1950, by which the sections of the Junagadh State Penal Code were substituted b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ267
Baxi, J.(1) This writ petition is against the order of ex-ternment passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra, Under Section 47 (B) of the Saurashtra District Police (Amendment) Act, 1951.(2) A notice Under Section 47(E) was served on the petitioner and after hearing his explanation and examining a witness produced by him the learned District Magistrate passed the above order on 29-7-52 ordering the petitioner to remove himself from the limits of the Central Saurashtra Division by a specified route to Bhavnagar and not to re-enter the said limits for a period of two years without permission in writing from the Government.(3) The petitioner's learned advocate challenged the order on various grounds. His first objection was that the material allegations against the petitioner mentioned in the notice were vague and lacked sufficient particulars to enable him to give an effective and complete explanation. His second contention was that these allegations di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1960Guj27; (1960)GLR38; [1962]44ITR325(Guj)
Desau, C.J. (1) A question of some importance has been raised before us on this petition and the question relates to the interpretation of the provisions imposing time-limit for issuance of a notice under S. 34 of the Income-tax Act. A notice under that section was served on the petitioner on 2-4-1938 intimating that his income for assessment year 1949-50 had escaped assessment and the competence of the income-tax Officer to issue the same is challenged on the ground that the notice was served after the expiry of the statutory period of eight years. The petitioner is a resident of the former Gondal State, which became a part of the State of Saurashtra on 1st April, 1948. The State of Saurashtra promulgated an Ordinance (IX of 1949) dated 19-3-1949, whereby income-tax was imposed in that State as therein laid down. The petitioner was doing business in the name of Messts Indian Industries at Gondal and was also carrying on business at Rajkot. For the assessment year 1949-50, he was asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1960)1GLR179
J.M. Shelat, J.1. His Lordship after narrating the facts proceeded. Mr. Shah who appears for the plaintiff has challenged the order of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit by the Trial Court and the learned Assistant Judge. His first contention was that the finding by the Courts below that the suit was barred both under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and under Section 37(3) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was erroneous and was not justified in law. He submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was in fact in time as it was filed on the 22nd of June 1953 i.e. within one year from the 28th April 1952 that being the date of the order of dismissal of the plaintiffs appeal by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal which is the final appellate authority That contention in my view cannot be sustained.2. The suit in substance was to set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and subsequently confirmed by the superior revenue authorities. Though in the plaint it was said that the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj22; (1960)GLR242; (1962)IILLJ194Guj
Desai, C.J. 1. This petition raises a question of some importance affecting the construction of S. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be referred to by us hereinafter as 'the Act.' The matter has been argued before us by Mr. S. D. Parekh with ability and discernment and he has made a valiant attempt to persuade us to hold that a decision of the Bombay High Court on the identical question should not be regarded by us as binding on this Court and he has taken his stand on the ground that that decision to which we shall presently turn was delivered per incuriam. 2. The facts may be succinctly stated. The petitioners are a limited company which owns a factory at Jamnagar. Respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner-company and he was chargesheeted by the company on 14 September, 1959, and a departmental inquiry was held against him. After the inquiry the employer dismissed respondent 2 from employment. At that time conciliation proceedings were pending before responden...
Tag this Judgment!