Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3127
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order dated 8th March, 1999 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 208 of 1998, by which the appellant is convicted under Sections 8(C) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`the NDPS Act' for short) and punished with R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One lac Only), in default to undergo R.I. for six months.2. The name of Mr. Mehul S. Shah was notified as the learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shah produced a letter dated 16th March, 2002 addressed to the appellant, seeking his instructions as to whether he has to conduct the matter or the appellant wants to engage another advocate. Mr. Shah has also produced a xerox copy of a post card dated 25th March, 2002 addressed to him by the appellant. Mr. Shah submitted that as indicated in that post card...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1960Guj19
Miabhoy, J.(1) The petitioner, Ramjibhai Ukabhai Parmar, has obtained a rule calling upon the respondent No. 2 to show cause who a writ of certiorary should not issue to remove into this court an order made by it allowing an appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 on the ground that it had violated a fundamental principle of natural justice. Respondent no. 1, Manilal Purushottam Solanki, is a Councilor of the Baroda Borough Municipality, (hereafter called the Municipality). Petitioner is a resident of Baroda and lames to be a voter in the ward from which respondent no. 1 has been elected as a councilor. Petitioner; case was that respondent no. 1 had incurred a disqualification to be a member of the Municipality under S. 12, sub-section (2), clause (b) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, (hereafter called the Act) and has thus become disabled from continuing as a councilor of the Municipality. Section 12, sub-section (2) clause (b) enacts inter alia, that no person who has directly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj151; (1961)2GLR343
Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of considerable importance regarding proprietary rights in lands granted by Rulers of Indian States before the merger of those States with the Dominion of India and the effect of the merger on such proprietary rights. Several arguments have been addressed to us relating to different aspects of this question and the arguments have been both able and ingenious. In order to understand and appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to this appeal. The facts are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Prior to 15th August 1947, the Sant State was an independent native State under the paramountcy of the British Crown. On 15th August 1947, India obtained independence and became a Dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. At the same time, the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed by reason of Section 7 of that Act and as a result thereof, the Sant State became...
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 : 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 : (1962)3GLR529
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This application for revision arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovering possession of a shop together with arrears of rent in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Sidhpur. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged before me in this Revision Application it is necessary to set out briefly the facts giving rise to this litigation. The facts are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows:2. The plaintiff is the owner of a shop situate on the ground-floor of a building in Sidhpur. The defendant was at all material times a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the shop. The contractual rent of the shop was Rs. 8/per month. The defendant paid the rent of the shop at The contractual rate of Rs. 8/per month up to 4th January 1954 and thereafter failed and neglected to pay any rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant on 4th February 1956 calling upon the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj235; (1962)0GLR438
Miabhoy, J.1. Two questions arise for decision by this Full Bench. The first is whether a decision given by an appellate authority under Sub-section (5) of Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereafter called the 'Act') is or is not subject to revision under Section 76 of the Act by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The second is whether the total income of the petitioner for disposing of his application for an exemption certificate, made under Sub-section (2) of Section 88C of the Act, is to be computed, under the circumstances of the case from the year beginning from 1st April 1956 and ending with 31st March 1957, or the year beginning from 1st September 1958 and ending with 31st August 1959.2. At first it will be convenient to mention a few facts which led up to the writ petition in which the questions arise for decision. Petitioner Madhaji Lakhiram is the owner of a land, bearing survey No. 610, admeasuring 9 acres 26 gunthas, situated in the village Na...
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 : AIR1963Guj119; (1963)GLR59
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This application to condone delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act arises from a suit filed by the appellant against the respondents in the Court of the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad, on 19th March 1952. The appellant claimed relief in respect of three categories of properties. The first category consisted of properties which according to the appellant belonged to his father Jesingbhai at the time of his death and were bequeathed by Jesingbhai to the appellant and his brother Jagabhai -- being the only two sons of Jesingbhai -- by a will. These properties, alleged the appellant, came into the hands of Jagabhai on the death of Jesingbhai and the appellant was entitled to one-half share in these properties. The second category comprised certain other properties which were inherited by the appellant and Jagabhai from their grandmother Bai Mena in equal shares and which on the death of Jesingbhai again came into the h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR941
P.M. Bhagwati, J.1. This group of matters consists of four Revision Applications and one appeal. They all raise the same question and are therefore being disposed of by a common judgment. The question raised is a question of considerable importance and it is whether the holder of a statutory tenancy under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) has power to sublet whole or part of the premises and thereby confer on the sub-tenant the benefit of the protective provision contained in Section 14 of the Rent Act. The facts giving rise to these matters are for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows.Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 Chandrakant Chhotalal Gandhi and Kantilal Bhogilal Nanavati are the present trustees of that trust. By an Indenture of Lease dated 18th July 1949 the then trustees granted a lease of certain premises situate on Relie...
Tag this Judgment!