Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-10-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Guj208; [1962(4)FLR498]; (1961)GLR705; (1964)0GLR470; (1962)IILLJ342Guj
1-6. x x x x x x 7. The question that falls for determination is whether that cover, (of spur gear wheel --Ed.) having been removed without the knowledge or consent or connivance of the respondent(the manager of the Oil Mills--Ed.) he could still be held guilty of breach of Section 21(1)(iv)(c) read with Section 92 of the Art (Factories Act --Ed.). As we have said, the learned Magistrate found that he was not, and that finding has been strenuously challenged by the learned Government Pleader.8. The learned Government pleader contended that (1) under Section 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Act, the liability of the occupier or, the manager of a factory was absolute; and (2) that if Section 21(1)(iv)(c) were to be read with Section 101 of the Act, it would be clear that unless the occupier or manager of a factory, when charged with an offence punishable under this Act, files a complaint to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender, brought before the court at the time appointed fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-23-1961
Reported in : [1962]32CompCas1162(Guj); (1962)GLR715
1. This application raises a short and interesting question of law regarding the right construction to be put on sections 87 to 90 of the Companies Act, 1956. These sections which relate to voting rights did not find a place in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and have been introduced for the first time in the Companies Act, 1956. There is no provision in the English Companies Act, 1948, corresponding to these sections nor is there any authority of any High Court in this country which throws light on the interpretation of these sections. The question of construction posed by this application has, therefore, to be decided by me on the language of these sections unaided by any authority or dicta of any court in this country or in England. The facts giving rise to this application are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows : The Lakhtar Ginning Company Private Limited was incorporated as a public company limited by shares in the old Lakhtar State in Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-23-1961
Reported in : (1962)0GLR715
1. This application raises a short and interesting question of law ;regarding the right construction to be put insurrection 87 to 90 of the companies Act, 1956,. These sections which relate to voting rights did not find a place in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and have been introduced for the first time in the Companies ACt, 1956. there is no provision in the English Companies Act, 1948, corresponding to theses section nor is there any authority of any High court in this country which throws light on the interpretation of these section. the question of construction posed by this application has, therefore, to be decided ;by me on the language of these section unpaid by any authority or dicta of any court in this court or in England. The facts gins rise to this application are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows: The Lakhtar Ginning Company Private Limited was incorporated as a public company limited by shares in the old Lakhtar4 state in December...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-23-1961
Reported in : AIR1963Guj209; (1962)3GLR715
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This application raises a short and interesting question of law regarding the right construction to be put on Sections 87 to 90 of the Companies Act, 1956. These Sections which relate to voting rights did not find a place in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and have been introduced for the first time in the Companies Act, 1956. There is no provision in the English Companies Act, 1948, corresponding to these sections nor is there any authority of any High Court in this country which throws light on the interpretation of these sections. The question of construction posed by this application has, therefore, to be decided by me on the language of these sections unaided by any authority or dicta of any Court in this country or in England. The facts giving rise to this application are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The Lakthar Ginning Company Private Limited was incorporated as a public Company limited by shares in the old...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-31-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Guj128; (1962)0GLR269
Desai, C.J. 1. This Special Full Bench has been constituted in order to consider the question relating to the binding nature of the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to 1st May, 1960, on this High Court. This very matter was considered by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court including the then Chief Justice in the case of Anand Municipality v. Union of India, reported in : AIR1960Guj40 . Later on, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Raju and Mr. Justice Bakshi found it difficult to accept the view expressed by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case and made a request for referring the question to another Full Bench for a re-consideration of the matter. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of (1960) 1 Guj LR 82 : (AIR 1960 Gujarat 40) (FB) that the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to the 1st of May, 1960, i. e., the day on which the State of Gujarat came into being fell within the ambit of the words...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-13-1961
Reported in : (1962)3GLR574
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises situate on Dudheshwar Road Ahmedabad. The premises consist of a structure known as Chhagan Kishor Iron Factory. It appears that from 1931 the defendant was in possession of the premises as a tenant of the plaintiffs. A deed of lease was executed by the between the plaintiffs and the defendant on 28 the November 1942 whereby a lease of the premises was granted by the plaintiffs to be defendant for a period of five years from 1st February 1942 at the rent and on the terms and conditions contained in the deed of lease. There was some dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiffs were the lessors under the deed of lease or whether the lessors were Dhirajlal Khushaldas and Company Agents of the plaintiffs. I shall discuss this aspect of the matter later but for the purpose of the present narration I shall proceed on the basis t...
Tag this Judgment!