Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-12-1979
Reported in : (1980)21GLR587
A.N. Surti, J.1. In the life of Gujarat, particularly in North Gujarat, a heinous offence was committed on August 27, 28, 1977 (which attracted considerable attention of the press and public as can be seen from the record of the case), Werein a young innocent boy, untainted with worldly designs, and deliberately selected as incapable of giving any mental or physical resistance to the offenders, was kidnapped, and mercilessly done to death, the initial motive for the commission of the crime being, that as accused No. 2 had no son was craving for the human flesh of his son and he was anxious to get a son, and he could only get a son, if he offered 'The tuft of hair of a young boy to Kalkamata...a deity' as advised by one Bava (or a so-called Sadhu or a Saint). But at this very stage, we may hasten to add that in course of the hearing of the appeal, we, times out of number, did administer to ourselves the necessary warning bell or the required caution to see, that the heinous nature of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-23-1979
Reported in : (1980)21GLR627
D.P. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal in respect of an offence punishable under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (the Act); and it raises the question whether the establishment of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or under the relevant prior Legislation, carrying on the work of architect, would be a commercial establishment as defined by Section 2(4) of the Act so as to make it compulsory for it to get itself registered under Section 7(1) read with Section 7(2) of the Act The respondent limited company was prosecuted for contravention of Sections 7(9) and 51 of the Act and Rule 23(4) & (5) of the Rules framed under the Act. The substantial allegations in the complaint filed by the Shops Inspector of Baroda Municipal Corporation was that during his visit and enquiry on April 12, 1977 he found that this was an establishment which was not registered under the Act and that it had not maintained the muster-roll, salary register and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-01-1979
Reported in : (1979)2GLR464
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This group of 52 appeals arises out of as many suits filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. They were filed by shareholders of corporate employers in which they challenged the vires of Sections 3 and 6A of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat) Rules, 1962. They contended that the aforesaid provisions were ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the suits were instituted in 1975 and others were instituted in 1976. No evidence was led in the suits. They were decided on the basis of legal arguments advanced before the learned trial Judge. On 2nd September 1978, they were decided by the learned trial Judge by a common judgment. He turned down the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suits. Decrees passed by him in all the suits are challenged by the plaintiffs in these appeals.2.Before we enter upon the examination of the contentions raised by the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-01-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Guj126; (1980)GLR335(GJ)
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. This group of cases have been referred to the Full Bench for deciding the contours of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 11 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976, read with Section 12 thereof. In Rana Mafatlal Gordhanbhai v. Mahendrabhai Babubhai, (1978) 19 Guj LR 529, Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta interpreted these sections and tried to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction between the Civil Court on one hand and the Debt Settlement Officer on the other hand by holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely ousted and It any question under the said Act arises, the Civil Court must stay the suit and direct the party to have the question decided by Debt Settlement Officer. After Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta rendered that decision, the same question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Patel Parshottam Ambavi v Patel Hansraj Valji Bhalodia, (1979) 20 Guj LR 7. The decision rendered by Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta was not Shown to the Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!