Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-13-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Guj302; 1965CriLJ753; (1964)GLR897
Vakil, J. (1) The appellant Himatsingh Bhadarsingh, a Rajput was tried for the murder of a Bhil girl Jivi on 16th of Aril 1962 and was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge at Broach in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1962. He was also convicted for having committed the offence under section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2) The prosecution case may be briefly stated. The appellant was a resident of village Rampura in Taluka Rajpipla of Broach District. He was employed as a teacher in the primary school at village Nava Vaghpura, which was also known as Jitpara. Between these villages, there was a village of Sengpura in which lived deceased Jivi with her parents Shaikhji Raysng and mother Uji. The appellant used to frequently visit the house of Shakhji Raysang on his way back from school and even occasionally stayed at night with them. He had de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-18-1964
Reported in : (1964)0GLR804
1. During the course of my experience at the bar and on the Bench I have come across very few petitions under section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, which have been brought to a conclusion. The remedy under section 397 or 398 as a weapon in the shareholders' armoury has proved more potent when brandished in terrorem than when actually used to strike and it has, therefore, in most cases served as an effective threat to induce those in control to behave reasonably towards all interests and in some cases where those in control have not behaved reasonably and the remedy has been invoked, the proceedings have mostly terminated in a compromise securing the interests sought to be prejudiced by those in control. This petition has been an exception and the only reason I can see for its having run its full course is that there is absolutely no merit in it. I shall immediately proceed to state the facts giving rise to the petition. The facts are many and to some extent disputed and it is,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-21-1964
Reported in : (1964)GLR865; [1964]54ITR271(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. A very interesting question of law arises on this petition. The question is whether an order under section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood after its amendment by the Finance Act, 1955, can be made at any time or whether it is governed by the time-limit specified in section 34(3). The facts giving rise to this petition are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The first petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of transporting goods and has its registered office at Jamnagar. Though the first petitioner is a public limited company, it is not a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A. The second petitioner is the managing director of the first petitioner. The relevant accounting years of the first petitioner corresponding to the assessment year 1957-58 was the financial year ending 31st March, 1957. The profit of the first petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58, according to its profit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-02-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Guj275; (1964)GLR988
Mehta, J.1. This group of eight Civil Revision Applications involves one or the other of the two important questions under the Agricultural Debtors Relief Act as under:(1)Whether the heirs of the deceased debtor can continue the applicants for adjustment of debts under section 4 of the Act? (2) Whether the heirs of a mortgagor and the purchaser of the equity of redemption in case of a usufructuary mortgage, in which there is no clause of personal liability, could make an application for adjustment of debt under section 4 of the Bombay Act or the Saurashtra Act?* * * * * * * * * * * *(2) To appreciate the contentions urged before u, it would be proper to consider at the outset the scheme of the Act. The preamble of the Act states the Act is meant to give relief to agricultural debtors and for certain other purposes specified therein. Section 2(4) defines 'debt'. Section 2(5) defines a 'debtor' to mean an individual person or an individual Hindu family as unit. The debtor's definition in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-09-1964
Reported in : AIR1966Guj6
Miabhoy, J.1. Civil Revision Application No. 826 of 1000 is made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Small Cause Suit No. 170 of 1958. That suit was brought by petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1099-74 nP. on the allegation that the opponent--Union of India which was, at the relevant time, the owner of the Western and the Central Railways had failed to discharge its duty as a bailee in respect of a part of a consignment, booked from Bhopal to Broach. The Union of India contested the suit on a number of grounds. The ground material to he mentioned for the purposes of this revision petition is that petitioner was not entitled to sue on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to mention the other defences of the Union because it is conceded by Mr. Majumdar that those other defences would fall to be considered only if a finding is reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-09-1964
Reported in : (1964)5GLR879
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. Civil Revision Application No. 826 of 1960 is made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Small Cause Suit No. 370 of 1958. That suit was brought by petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1099-74 nP. on the allegation that the opponent Union of India which was at the relevant time the owner of the Western and the Central Railways had failed to discharge its duty as a bailee in respect of a part of a consignment booked from Bhopal to Broach. The Union of India contested the suit on a number of grounds The ground material to be mentioned for the purposes of this revision petition is that the petitioner was not entitled to sue on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to mention the other defences of the Union because it is conceded by Mr. Majmudar that those other defences would fall to be considered only if a finding is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-29-1964
Reported in : (1964)5GLR847
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These two appeals arise from a common order passed on 11th of April 1960 by the learned District Judge Ahmedabad in Civil Appeals Nos. 370 of 1958 and 371 of 1958 by which he allowed the appeals with costs set aside the decrees of the trial Court in Civil Suits Nos. 529 of 1956 and 273 of 1957 and remanded the suits for hearing and deciding them on merits. The appellant in both the High Court appeals is the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad the original defendant (hereinafter called Corporation). In appeal No. 77 of 1960 the respondents are the heirs of one Premchand Mahasukhram the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 273 of 1957 (hereinafter called plaintiff Premchand). In appeal No. 78 of 1960 the respondent is the Rustom Jehangir Vakil Mills Company Limited the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 529 of 1956 (hereinafter called the Mills) A common point of law arose in both the District Court appeals. Therefore the learned District Judge disposed of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-30-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Guj112; (1964)GLR705; (1965)ILLJ567Guj
Shelat, C.J. 1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the reference dated 29 July, 1961 made under S. 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, by respondent 2 association to the industrial court and the order made by the industrial court negativing certain preliminary issues raised by the petitioner-association and for restraining the industrial court from proceeding further with the reference. The reference was made in the following circumstances. 2. Under the standing orders settled under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which are determinative under S. 40(2) of the Act in respect of matters enumerated in Sch. I thereto including 'conditions, procedure and authority to grant leave' and in particular standing orders 11 and 12 and binding on the petitioners and respondent 2 association, it was provided that service for a total period of twelve months in a textile mill should quality an operative for a total period of one m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-31-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Guj215; (1965)0GLR137
Shelat, C.J.(1) The common questions arise in this case and the following petitions Nos. 752 of 1961, 1054 of 1963, 639 of 1963 and 917 of 1963 and therefore, it would be expedient to have disposed of together. In the last three petitions Nos. 1054 of 1963, 639 and 917 of 1963 however, some additional questions are raised and therefore, they will have to be dealt with separately. The two questions that are common to all these petitions are (1) whether the petitioners are manufacturers of cotton fabrics as defined in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder, and (2) even if they are so, whether the cotton fabrics in question which they are said to have manufactured or got manufactured, attract the provisions of Rules 7 and 9 of these rules or whether they enjoy exemption granted under the notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of those rulesNo. 751 of 1961(2) In this petition, we are concerned with Tarun Trading Co., a proprietary concern c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-11-1964
Reported in : (1965)6GLR228
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals which are 306 in number arise out of several suits filed by various rate-payers against the Ahmedabad Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality) in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ahmedabad. The suits related to the levy of tax on open lands for the official years 1947-48 1948 1949 and 1950 Prior to 1st July 1950 the Municipality was a Borough Municipality governed by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Boroughs Act). There were in force during the period upto 31st March 1947 the Valuation and Taxation Rules made by the Municipality under Section 58(j) and sanctioned by the Government by their Resolution dated 14th February 1931 under Section 76 prescribing various taxes leviable by the Municipality. It appears that sometime prior to 20th February 1947 the Municipality at a General Meeting passed a Resolution selecting tax on open lands for being levied by the Municipality and approving ...
Tag this Judgment!