Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)0GLR395; (1966)IILLJ389Guj
Mehta, J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting question as to whether a doctor's dispensary is a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. It has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused-doctor by the City Magistrate (Municipal), Ahmedabad, on the charge for the offence under S. 52(e) of the Act read with S. 62 and rule 23(1) of the said Act. 3. The case of the prosecution was that the accused who was a doctor having his dispensary situated near Jakaria Masjid at Ahmedabad had not maintained the employment register in the prescribed form with the necessary particulars regarding the hours of work in respect of three employees working in the dispensary. The complainant, shops inspector, had visited this dispensary on 13 June, 1963 at about 9-50 a.m. and had found that even though the dispensary was registered as a commercial establishment under the Act, the employment registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1977]107ITR172(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69, the corresponding previous year being the calendar year 1967. The assessee is a public limited company having a textile mill at Ahmedabad. It debited cloth kharajat account in its trading books with an amount of Rs.18,247 with a view to make provision for payment to the Textile Commissioner for non-fulfilment of export obligations undertaken for the use of 'sanforized' trade mark. The Income-tax Officer held that the said payment was by way of penalty and, therefore, could not be considered as incidental to carrying on of the business. He, therefore, disallowed the said expenditure by his assessment order of February 25, 1970. There were other claims and contention advanced on behalf of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer with which we are not concerned in this reference. The assessee being dissatisfied with the order of the Income-tax Officer carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1976Guj8; (1975)GLR764
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The question which confronts the Court is whether a Pleader enrolled under the Bombay Pleader Act of 1920, hereafter called the 'Pleaders Act', who has been removed from practice can be reinstated under the general powers of superintendence exercisable by the High Court subsequent to the enforcement of the Advocates Act of 1961.2. A few facts require to be mentioned in order to understand the Point at issue. The Petitioner, Pragjibhai Kesurbhai Patel, was practicing as a Pleader at Sinor in the Baroda District. It appears that one Mavjibhai Govindbhai a client of petitioner Pragjibhai made an application to the learned District Judge of Baroda under Section 26 of the Pleaders Act, Insurance of the report submitted by the learned District Judge the matter came up before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Misc. Civil Appln No.293 of 1965. By an order D/- 8-3-1966 the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1192; (1978)GLR18
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J.1. Not infrequently one who attempts to do his best conscientiously gets a slap on the cheek rather than a pat on the back as is revealed by the present proceedings arising out of observations made and strictures passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, against a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, subordinate to him in the course of a transfer application instituted in his Court. The observations and strictures appear to be exteremely unfair and uncalled for and warrant interference at the hands of this Court in order to make amends to the learned Magistrate so that one who is concerned with the administration of justice himself does not suffer from a sense or feeling of injustice. It appears that the learned Magistrate. Shri R.P. Patel, LL. M., made a bona fide effort in order to bring about reconciliation between a husband and wile in a proceeding for maintenance pending in his Court. Now, the learned Sessions Judge has made certain observations which woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1969CriLJ810; (1969)GLR611
J.M. Sheth, J.1. The respondent was charge-sheeted to the Court for committing murder of one Ambalal Jagjivandas Purani of Broach by giving him stab wounds with a knife at about 8.15 p.m. on 6.8.1966 at Vankarvas Tekra in Kabirpura locality in the City of Broach. He was also charged for the offence under Section 185 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for contravention of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Broach under Sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Committing Magistrate, after making a preliminary inquiry, committed him to the Court of Sessions at Broach to stand his trial for the aforesaid two offences. The deceased Ambalal was working as a clerk in the District Court at Broach. The case had thereupon come to be transferred to the Court of Sessions at Baroda by this Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Baroda, Mr. S.M. Nanavati convicted the respondent of an offence, punishable under Section 304 part 2 of the Indian Penal Code, and for the offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR346
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A country craft named 'Jaywanti Prasad', bearing Registration No UMR 232 was intercepted at 15-30 hours on April 24, 1974 by Customs Officers of Bulsar Division who were patrolling the sea-coast pursuant to intelligence received by them. The Customs Officers boarded the vessel and brought it to Bulsar Jetty. On enquiry from respondent No. 1 who was the owner of the vessel and the Tindel it was realised that the vessel was coming from Dubai and was bound for Bombay with contraband goods. The respondents did not possess any customs manifest, port clearance etc. or any documents of authorization entitling them to import the contraband goods. A search of the vessel revealed that it was carrying 51 packages of contraband goods valued at Rs. 1,64,450/- as on April 27, 1974. The search further revealed that it was also carrying foreign make fabrics manufactured in Japan which were also contraband articles valued at Rs. 4,50,000/- on April 27, 1974. Thus, in all contraband g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR423
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. The main question which arises for decision in this appeal from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court is whether the appellant could be said to be guilty of a corrupt practice contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by reason of the fact that his election symbol a star was described as Dhruva star in the pamphlets published and distributed by him or by his agents and in which the qualities of Dhruva star were also set out.2. The election to the Assembly seat was contested by three candidates the appellant respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The appellant having secured 20 62 votes as against 15,190 secured by the first respondent and 7 93 by the second respondent was declared to be elected on February 26 1962 The first respondent thereupon preferred an election petition before the Election Commission challenging the appellants election on the following five grounds:(1) That...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2005
Kshitij R. Vyas, J.1. The convict-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.7.1996 passed in Sessions Case No.337/95 by the learned Addl.City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, convicting him for offences punishable under section 302 of IPC and under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act awarding sentence to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rupees Five thousand. In default to undergo R.I. for one month for offence under section 302 of IPC and to pay fine of Rupees five hundred for the offence under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. In default, to undergo further R.I. for one month.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:The accused was tried for committing murder of deceased Jayesh Chudasma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The incident had taken place on 31.1.1995 at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. on the public road near the petrol pump in the area of Naroda in the City of Ahmedabad. The decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1999)2GLR1830
M.S. Parikh, J.1. The appellant Raja alias Suresh Santramdas Kodwani, (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') stood his trial for the offences punishable u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act on the allegation that on 26/1/1988, at about 6.15 p.m. he assaulted deceased Pratapbhai Kundanbhai Kodwani at Royal Bakery with a poker, which he was having with him in violation of certain prohibitory orders issued by the Competent Police Authority and caused grievous hurt resulting into death of aforesaid Pratapbai Kundanbhai Kodwani within a short time. He was tried accordingly before the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 153 of 1988. At the conclusion of trial he was held guilty of having committed offence punishable u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted of the offence punishable u/S. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He was accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by impugned judgment dated 16/1/1990 rendered b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2152; (2006)ILLJ587Guj
ORDERS FOR CONTINGENT EMPLOYEES OF THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION' in force since 15.7.1962 applied to all workmen called 'contingent employees' employed in various units of the ONGC excluding the regular employees to whom other statutory rules applied. Relevant Clause 2 of those Standing Orders reads as under:'2. (i) Classification of workmen: The contingent employees of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as:(a) temporary.(b) casual.(ii) A workmen who has been on the rolls of the Commission and has put in not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be a temporary workman, provided that a temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possesses minimumqualifications prescribed by the Commission may be considered for conversion as regular employee.(iii) A workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as 'casual workman'.The Standing Orders also pro...
Tag this Judgment!