Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769
Miabhoy, J.(1) In this group of six appeals, a preliminary objection has been raised for decision. The objection was first raised when Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1960 was called out for hearing. As the objection affected a number of other Letters Patent Appeals, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal and directed that all other Letters Patent Appeals in which the same objection was likely to be raised should be fixed for hearing them together so that the preliminary objection, if raised, could be decided after hearing all the learned Advocates appearing therein. It is in pursuance of that order that all the above appeals are fixed for hearing the preliminary objection if the same happens to be raised. This judgment will dispose of the preliminary objection which is raised by all the learned Advocates for the respondents in all the appeals.(2) The preliminary objection is that the present appeals are incompetent without the certificate of the learned Judgers of he Bombay High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1960Guj40; (1960)GLR82(GJ)
Desai, C.J.(1) The question of considerable importance and consequence that has to be decided by this Full Bench relates to the binding nature of the precedents of the Bombay High Court on this High Court. The question is whether the Gujarat High Court is bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court delivered before 1-5-1960. The petition which gave rise to it came up for consideration before my brother Miabhoy and myself when in the course of the arguments at the bar the learned Advocate General relied on a decision of the High Court of Bombay. Learned counsel on the other side argued that this Court was not bound by a decision of the High Court of Bombay. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Andhra High Court, Subbarayudu v. State (S) AIR 1955 Andhra 87 decided by a Full Bench of that High Court. It was there held that the binding nature of the precedents of one Court on another depended upon the fact whether such Courts are Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction; and the Andh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj7; (1960)GLR190
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners for an order that the petitioners be appointed guardians of the undivided share of the minor respondents in the property particularly described in Exhibit A to the petition and that the agreement of sale of the said property mentioned in the petition be sanctioned as being for the benefit of the minor respondents and that the petitioners as guardians be authorised to complete the sale on behalf of the minor respondents. The order is sought from this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. When this petition was presented, I entertained some doubt as to whether this Court has inherent or general jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the undivided share of a minor in a joint Hindu family and to sanction the sale on behalf of the minor. I, therefore, asked the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners to address full arguments to me on this point. Since the petition is at this stage ex parte, I requested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj305; (1961)GLR681
ORDERN.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a petition under Section 394, read with Section 391, Indian Companies Act, 1956 (No. 1 of 1956), for amalgamating two textile Mills. The petitioner is The Sidhpur Mills Company Limited, having its registered office at Sidhpur, District Mehsana, in the State of Gujarat, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sidhpur Company'). The petition is opposed by one of the Directors of the Company, two partners of the firm of the Managing Agents and some shareholders of the company.2. The Sidhpur Company was incorporated in about 1921 and, on the 1st of April 1959, the authorized capital of the company was Rs. 75 lacs divided into 50,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100/- each and 25,000 preference shares of Rs. 100/- each and its issued, subscribed an paid up capital was Rs. 15,09,000/- divided into 15,096 ordinary shares of Rs. 100/- each. On 1st August, 1959, Messrs. Maganlal Prabhudas and Company were the managing agents of the company. The firm consisted of eight partner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR803
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This special Civil Application arises from an election application filed under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 the village Tundali situate in Mehsana Taluka has a Panchayat constituted under Section 9 of the Act and that Panchayat consists of 7 members. The village is divided into 3 wards. Ward No. 1 has two seats out of which one is reserved for Harijans. Ward No. 2 has two seats out of which one is reserved for women and ward No. 3 has 3 seats out of which one is reserved for women. In other wards there are four general seats two seats reserved for women and one seat reserved for Harijans.On December 16 1960 a general election was held wherein the petitioner and respondents 1, 2 and 4 contested for the two general seats in ward No. 3. Respondents 3 and 5 contested for the seat reserved for women in that ward. Respondents 1 and 2 got 108 votes each while the petitioner and respondent No. 4 got 106 votes each. Respondents 3 and 5 who had contested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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
Reported in : AIR1962Guj250
Raju, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1961 is filed by five persons, who were original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 25 in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1961 tried by the Sessions Judge, Panch-Mahals. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the five appellants and hence this appeal. The appeal is before us for admission. 2. Under Section 410, Criminal Procedure Code, any person convicted on a trial by a Sessions Judge, or an Additional Sessions Judge, may appeal to the High Court. Section 419, Cri. Pro. Code provides that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader. The cumulative effect of Sections 410 and 419, Cri. Pro. Code is that every appellant should file a separate appeal in the form of a petition. If four persons P, Q, R and S are convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge, Section 410, Cri. P.C. provides that every one of these persons namely P or Q or R or S may appeal to the High Court and Section 419 provides that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj88; (1962)0GLR204
Shelat, J. 1. This petition raises questions of considerable importance regarding the construction of certain provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, the Impact of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution on those provisions and the competence of the State Legislature to enact them. The facts giving rise to this petition are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated.2. The petitioner is the father of Shrikant, at present studying in St. Xavier's College, which is affiliated to the University of Gujarat under the Gujarat University Act, 1949. Shrikant took his Secondary education in P. G. T. High School, Bombay, and M. S. N. High School, Ahmedabad, and passed his S. S. C. examination in June 1960. The medium of instruction as well as examination throughout the period of his Secondary education was Marathi. He took the S. S. C. Examination in Marathi and his mother-tongue is also Marathi. His aim was and continues to be, as stated in the petition, to gualify hi...
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 : 1963CriLJ533; (1963)GLR270
Shelat, J.1-10. x x x x x x11. It was next contended by Mr. Baxi that the Chemical Analyser's certificate was not admissible in evidence inasmuch as the Assistant Chemical Analyser who has signed the certificate is not the Assistant Chemical Analyser to the Government of Gujarat. Relying upon our judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1961, D/- 19-6-1962 (Guj), where we considered the provisions of Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Baxi argued that the Chemical Analyser or the Assistant Chemical Analyser whose certificate is made admissible under Section 510, Cr.P.C. must be a Chemical Analyser or an Assistant Chemical Analyser to the Government of the State where the prosecution is launched and, therefore, the Assistant Chemical Analyser, who has signed (the certificate in this case, being the Assistant Chemical Analyser attached to the State of Maharashtra, the certificate was not admissible. Now the raid and the seizure of the bottles in this case took place on Janu...
Tag this Judgment!