Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj259; 1963CriLJ502; (1963)GLR209
Miabhoy, J.1. The petitioner Shri Indulal Kanaiyalal Yagnik has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He challenges inter alia, the constitutionality of Clause (r), Sub-clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, (hereafter called the 'Act'), and the rules made thereunder. The challenge is on the ground that the clause and the rules are violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.The petitioner also challenges an order, dated 8th March 1961, passed by the second respondent, who is the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad.The challenge is on the same grounds. The petitioner also challenges the act of the third respondent, by which the latter seized a microphone from petitioner's possession.2. A party bearing the name of 'Ahmedabad. Janata Samiti' was formed to contest the Municipal elections which were to be held at Ahmedabad in March 1961. The 'Samiti' put up 45 cor.didates at the election. The petitioner, who was the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)0GLR1001
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. Plaintiff joined service in the Gondal State as a jailor in 1927. He was serving as a jailor at Gondal in 1948 when the State of Gondal merged with the United States of Kathiawar. Plaintiff was absorbed as a servant of that State. Subsequently, he was transferred to Surendranagar in 1951 and, on or about 1 August, 1952, he was promoted as a senior jailor. Later on, he was transferred to Rajkot and demoted as an accountant. In 1953, he was serving as an accountant in the Central Jail at Rajkot. Whilst he was so serving, charges ware levelled against the plaintiff on the ground that, in or about 1952, whilst he was serving at Surendranagar, he had committed certain defaults by misappropriation of foodstuffs, maltreatment of prisoners and acceptance of illegal gratifications from them. Plaintiff was suspended on 25 March 1954 and, on 27 March 1954, he was served with a chargesheet making the aforesaid allegations against him. Plaintiff filed a writt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj195; (1963)GLR698
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an application by the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Karjan for the recovery of Rs. 3700/- from two persons, who were attendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the suit defendant No. 2 was sought to be made liable because he was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, although the promissory note was executed by defendant No. 1 alone.2. The plaintiff then gave an application for amending the plaint in the following terms:'In the alternative it is also prayed that both the defendants are the brothers and they have a joint undivided family and they have a joint family running cloth shop and that it is managed by the defendant No. 1. And for the business of the said shop the defendant No. 1 had purchased the cloth from the plaintiff and after settling the account thereof in the interest and benefit of the defendants' joint family, the defendant No. 1 as Manager o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1963CriLJ556; (1963)0GLR563; (1963)IILLJ540Guj
Divan, J. 1. The appellant, Sahebkhan Umarkhan, who was the sarpanch of Hingolgadh Panchayat, from 1 August, 1959 to 28 June, 1960, was alleged to have committed dishonest and criminal misappropriation of various amounts aggregating to Rs. 3,000 and odd. In respect of these criminal misappropriations, two separate trials were commenced against the accused before the Special Judge, Rajkot district, Rajkot. In Special Criminal Case No. 17 of 1961, the accused was charged with having committed dishonest misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2,506.62, during the period 1 August, 1959 to 30 July, 1960 and thereby having committed offence under S. 409, Indian Penal Code, and S. (5)(1)(c) punishable under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Special Criminal Case No. 2 of 1962, the same accused was charged for having dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 656.97 during the period from 1 August, 1960 to 28 June, 1961 and thereby having committed offences punishable under S. 409, In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)4GLR662
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicants suit to recover Rs. 230/- from the Union of India as owning and representing the Western Railway on the ground that the amount was wrongfully recovered from the plaintiffs as wharfage and demurrage charges was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 26 read with Section 3(14) and Section 32 of the Indian Railways Act. This view is now challenged in revision.The relevant provisions of the Indian Railways Act read as follows:Sec 26. Bar of jurisdiction of ordinary Courts in certain matters. Except as provided in this Act no suit shall be instituted or proceeding taken for anything done or any omission made by a railway administration in violation or contravention of any provision of this Chapter.Section 32 of the Indian Railways Act has been repealed by the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act 1957 (58 of 1957). But the section as it stood before it was repealed read as follows:A railway administration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj154; [1964]52ITR482(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This Reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, raises some interesting and important questions relating to the construction of Section 2(m) and Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act which have been argued with considerable vigour and ability by both the sides. One of the noteworthy features of this case is that some cases have been relied upon by both the sides in order to deduce contrary conclusions. The Raipur Manufacturing Company Limited is the assessee in this case. The assessment year in question is the year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being the 31st December, 1956. On 11th May, 1956, a demand notice had been issued on the assesses under Section 18-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for advance payment of tax requiring the Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,59,549/- in four instalments, the instalments being payable on the 15th June, 1956, the 15th September, 1956, the 15th December, 1956 and the 15th March, 1957. Prior to the valuation date, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)0GLR652; [1964]51ITR266(Guj)
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case was non-resident company running a textile mill in the then Baroda State during the relevant accounting year 1944. The assessment year in question is the year 1945-46. The assessee submitted its return of income and on 24th March, 1960, was assessed to tax. The assessee company had sold certain goods to the Textile Commissioner, Bombay, and had also sold certain goods to Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. The payments in respect of these goods had been made by cheques drawn on banks in British India. The Income-tax Officer took the view that as these payments were made in British India, they attracted the incidence of tax having regard to the provisions contained in section 4 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, preferred an appeal therefrom to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The principal grounds urged by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)0GLR741
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, raises some interesting and important questions relating to the construction of section 2(m) and section 7of the Wealth-tax Act which have been argued with considerable vigour and ability by both the sides. One of the noteworthy features of this case is that some cases have been relied upon by both the sides in order to deduce contrary conclusions. The Raipur Manufacturing Company Limited is the assessee in this case. The assessment year in question is the year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being the 31st December, 1956. On 11th May, 1956, a demand notice had been issued on the assessee under the section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for advance payment of tax requiring the company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,59,549 in four instalments being payable of the 15th June, 1956, the 15th September, 1956, the 15the December, 1956, and the 15th March, 1957. Prior to the valuation date, the assessee pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj330; 1963CriLJ615; (1964)0GLR42
Mody, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a British Subject and a citizen of the United Kingdom. He also claims to hold a passport issued by Colony and Protectorate of Kenya in Africa under the British Crown.2. In the year 1960 the petitioner was in Nairobi in Kenya. He left the continent of Africa from the port of Mombasa on January 3, 1961 to come to India. It appears that after the petitioner's departure from Kenya, a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 308 of the Penal Code in force in Kenya for obtaining, between December 30, 1960 and January 2, 1961, goods by false pretence fromvarious merchants in Nairobi. These offences werealleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Nairobi,It is not necessary to go into the details of allegations made against the petitioner in this writ application. It will be sufficient to state that the allegation was that the petitioner deposited 20 Shillings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1964]54ITR97(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference relates to a notice issued under section 34(1)(b) of the Act against the assessee. The assessment year with which are concerned is the year 1949-50, the accounting year being the calendar year 1949. The assessee is a company registered in the former Baroda State having its registered office at Baroda. Prior to the merger of the State of Baroda with the State of Bombay, the assessee was being assessed as a non-resident by the Income-tax Officer at Bombay. On 22nd July, 1949, the assessee in the usual course submitted a return of income under section 22(2) to the Income-tax Officer at Bombay for the assessment year 1949-50. On 1st August, 1949, the territories of the State of Baroda were merged with the territories of the State of Bombay. On 22nd August, 1949, the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Ordinance (XXI of 1949) was passed whereby the Indian Income-...
Tag this Judgment!