Gujarat Court November 1963 Judgments
Tata Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kailash C. Adhvaryu
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj265; [1964(9)FLR394]; (1964)0GLR649; (1965)ILLJ54Guj
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal raises some questions relating to the construction of certain provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The facts giving rise to this appeal are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows. The first appellants are a limited company carrying on business of manufacturing chemicals at Mithapur in Jamnagar District. The second appellant is the Works Manager of the factory of the first appellants at Mithapur while the third respondent is the Divisional Engineer in Charge of the power house of the first appellants. The respondent was employed as a clerk in the establishment of the first appellants since and May 1950 and at the material time he was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 80/- per month plus Dearness Allowance of Rs. 69/- per month, his total emoluments thus being Rs. 149/- per month. The industrial establishment of the first appellants being an industrial establishment to which the Industrial Empl...
Tag this Judgment!Natwarlal Mohanlal Kharadi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj239; (1964)0GLR1076
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the vires of Rule 51 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, made by the Government of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 45 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, in so far as it made it an offence for any person to contravene the provisions of Rule 10. The Rule required every dealer liable to pay tax under the Act to pay the tax into a Government treasury every quarter before furnishing the return in Form I for that quarter. The petitioner being a registered dealer was liable to pay tax under the Act and he was, therefore, under an obligation under Rule 10 to pay the tax into a Government treasury every quarter before furnishing the return in Form I for that quarter. The petitioner, however, failed and neglected to comply with this obligation under Rule 10 and did not pay the tax due under the Act into a Government treasury for the quarters ending on 3Oth September 1...
Tag this Judgment!The Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. Co. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj219; (1964)GLR961; [1964]15STC885(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. The dispute in this Reference relates to certain sales effected by the assessee during the assessment period 1st April 1953 to 31st March 1954. The assessee at the material time carried on business of manufacture and sale of cloth. The mode of business adopted by the assessee in respect of the sales of cloth effected by it was as follows. The assessee entered into contracts of sale of cloth with local buyers. The contracts were entered into by the buyers irrespective of the fact whether they had received any indents from upcountry merchants. The contracts were sometimes oral and sometimes in writing. It was a condition of the contracts that the delivery of cloth would be given at the godown of the buyer or If the buyer instructed the assesses to despatch the cloth by rail to any destination, the assessee would despatch the cloth to such destination and give constructive delivery of the cloth by handing over to the buyer the relative Railway Receipt duly endorsed in favou...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Ramprakash P. Puri and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj223; 1964CriLJ541
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittals of the three respondents by the City Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 2020 of 1962. The State has now come in appeal and prays that the acquittals of these three persons should be set asidu.2. The appeal is filed under Section 417. Criminal Pro. Code, which provides that the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court. Section 419, Cri. P. C. provides that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition. As there were three accused persons at the trial and all of them are acquitted, the question is whether there are three orders of acquittal or whether there is one order of acquittal. If two persons P and Q are jointly tried at one trial, one may be convicted and the other acquitted in which case there is one order of conviction and one or...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1963
Reported in: (1964)0GLR446; [1964]15STC367(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This reference together with three other references arises out of similar, though not identical, facts and raises allied questions in the sense that the petitioners in all the four references carry on business as textile manufacturers and the sales in respect of which these references have arisen are sales not of textile goods manufactured by them, but of articles, such as old machinery, consumable stores, scrap and raw materials. There is, therefore, similarity in the questions that arise in respect of each of them and, therefore, we have thought it expedient to hear them together. In spite of the similarity and though we propose to dispose them of by a single judgment, we shall have to deal with them separately in the light of the facts of each of them. We will, therefore, take reference No. 34 of 1963 first as it is somewhat typical of the rest of them, an dispose of the rest in the light of the arguments and contentions advanced and the authorities cited at the Bar. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ramanlal Sankalchand and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Guj60; [1965]16STC329(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.(1) This Reference raises a question of vires of Section 26(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act,1953. The section has been challenged as beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature on the ground that it purports to tax a transaction which is not a sale, by treating it as a sale. In order to appreciate how the question arises, it is necessary to state briefly the facts giving rise to the Reference. The opponents were until 27th November 1956, a partnership firm, and the firm carried on business as a dealer in mill stores. The firm was registered as a dealer under the Act and held Registration Certificate No.10-C-198. Quarterly returns of turnover of its sales were filed by the firm from time to time as required by the Act and the Rules framed under the Act. on the death of one of the partners, the firm was dissolved on 27th November 1956, but the surviving partners continued to submit quarterly returns in the name of the firm until 31st March 1957, since certain go...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Patel Parshottambhai Desaibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR738
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge at Baroda. The appellant before me is the State of Bombay (now Gujarat) which was original defenfdant No. 1. A suit had been filed against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the suit property vested in the plaintiff belongs to the plaintiff and also for a declaration that the decision of the Prant Officer holding that the suit property belonged to the Government was incorrect illegal and not binding on the plaintiff The trial Court Judge held that the property belonged to the plaintiff but he dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. He therefore dismissed the suit observing that although the plaintiff had good case on merits his suit should be dismissed as barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.2. In appeal the learned District Judge at Baroda held that the suit would be barred und...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Bros. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC478(Guj)
Shelat, C.J. 1. These are two references, one at the instance of the assessees and the other at the instance of the State of Gujarat, arising out of a reference made to the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioners, Messrs Pravin Brothers, under section 52(e) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Since they involve the same facts, and arise out of the same order, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in reference No. 8 of 1963 were at the material time dealers in embroidered cloth. On 1st December, 1960, they sold two embroidered sarees, each of five yards in length, for Rs. 12 and Rs. 10-8-0 respectively and they also sold a piece of embroidered cloth of three yards in length at the rate of Rs. 3-10-0 per yard. It is an admitted fact that the five yards pieces were cut from malmal and voil takas ands embroidery work was thereafter superimposed on them. The embroidered piece of three yards also was similarly prepared. The five yards pieces were intended to be used ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Jaganbhhai Bnagwanbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ589
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent, who was prosecuted Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of (jamming Act. The learned Magistrate held that money and sups were found in the possession of the respondent, when the shop was searched by the Sub Inspector of Police under the authority of a warrant issued Under Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, which will hereinatier be referred to as the Act. The learned Magistrate held mat the slips were not instruments of gaming. the learned Magistrate also held that he was not satisfied mat the police officer, who made the search and who seized the articles, had reasonable grounds for thinking that the slips were instruments of gaming. The learned Magistrate, therefore, took the view that the presumption Under Section 7 of the Act Is not attracted and he acquitted the respondent. Hence this appeal by the State of Gujarat.2. That the slips were found in the- poss...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-1963
Reported in: (1964)0GLR742; [1965]16STC380(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. The short question that arises on this reference is whether 'L' type Industrial Centrifugal Humidifiers complete with electric motors of 3/4 H.P. and starters fall within Entry 15 of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The applicants made an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 of the Act to determine the rate of tax payable on the sale of humidifiers. The contention of the applicants was that humidifiers are machinery used in the manufacture of cloth and are, therefore, covered by Entry 15 of Schedule C. This contention was, however, negatived by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax described the role of humidifiers in the textile industry in the following words : 'The humidifiers are used by the textile mills. The purpose of this is to maintain the humidity of a particular room where the process of spinning etc., is done. This humidity helps to increase the length and strength of yarn. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »