Gujarat Court April 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
indrakant M. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1970
Reported in: (1971)ILLJ173Guj
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner, who was recruited as a Mechanical Overseer temporarily and who was subsequently promoted as an officiating Deputy Engineer, has challenged certain orders passed by the Government of Gujarat against him in certain departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the order of dismissal passed as a result of those departmental proceedings. The order, Annexure, 'G' to the petition is dated August 2, 1966. By that order the petitioner was dismissed from service form the date of the Resolution i.e. from August 2, 1966; and it was declared that an amount of Rs. 636.41 should be recovered from the petitioner, inasmuch as he was found to be negligent in the discharge of his duties as a result of which the Government suffered a loss of 5081.28 P. 2. On August 27, 1955, the petitioner was appointed as Mechanical Overseer on the establishment of Mahi Mechanical Division, Thasra. This appointment was made as a temporary measure until further orders and ...
Ahmedbhai Abdulkadar and ors. Vs. the Custodian of Evacuee Property an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj181
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellant to obtain a decree for a declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Custodian. Junagadh on 5th April, 1950 declaring him to be an evacuee, and his properties evacuee properties, as illegal, invalid and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the competent officer. Evacuee interest from doing certain acts. The said suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Junagadh where the same was registered as special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1960.2. Short facts of the case are that the plaintiff was the owner of one-half share in two immoveable properties one situated at Junagadh and the other at Mangrol. He was also the owner of one-half share in a business concern carried on in the name and style of 'Noorbhai Valibhai' at Junagadh. Sometime after the partition of the country i.e., on 12th July, 1949 the plaintiff applied to the First Class Magistrate. Junagadh for a 'no objection' certificate on the g...
Dhari Gram Panchayat Vs. Shri Brahad Saurashtra Safai Kamdar Mandal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR287
D.A. Desai, J.1. These petitions are directed against two awards between the same parties made by Mr. D.M. Vin, in Reference (IC-IDA) No. 52 of 1967 and Reference (IC-IDA) No. 79 of 1967.2. The facts which are not in dispute lie within a narrow compass. Dhari Gram Panchayat is constituted under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. There were 23 Safai Kamdars in its employment at the relevant time. When the Safai Kamdars as usual reported for duty between 6-00 and 7-00 A.M. on 1st June 1967, they were told that they would not be aken up on work and they were asked to go away and subsequently they were dismissed. The Secretary of the Shri Brahad Saurashtra Safai Kamdar Mandal approached the Sarpanch of the Panchayat but the Sarpanch was not available and the Up Sarpanch who met him disclosed his inability to do anything in the matter. According to Safai Kamdars even after they were dismissed from service they continued to work in order that the town community may not be harassed. They were ...
Natwarlal Jerambhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj264; (1971)GLR146
A.D. Desai, J. 1. In this group of special civil applications the petitioners challenge the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), acquiring their lands for the extension of village site urgently under Section 17(4) of the Act by dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In Special Civil Applications Nos.1603 and 1604 of 1967, the lands that are sought to be acquired are respectively S. Nos. 11 and 14 situated in village Kholeshwar, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat. In these petitions the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on January 24, 1967 and October 6, 1967 respectively. In Special Civil Application No. 864 of 1967 the lands that are sought to be acquired are S. Nos. 925, 950-A, 954 and 953 situated in village Ichchhapore, Taluka Chorasi, District Surat. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on February 16, 1967 and May 30, 1967 respectively. In all...
Daniraiji Vrajlalji Vs. Vahuji Maharaj Chandraprabha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj188
Mehta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the suit for declaration filed by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant defendant that the defendant is not the adopted son of deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghnathji of Junagadh. The suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judge. (S.D.) at Junagadh, where it was registered as long Civil Suit No. 115 of 1958. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit and, therefore, the original defendant, who claims that he is adopted son to the deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghunathji, has preferred this appeal.2. Short facts of the case are as under. The parties to this suit are the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharaj, the original founder of Suddh Adwit Pushti Marg. He flourished in Vikram Samvat 1535 which is equivalent to 1479 A.D. The family of the parties is called Vallabhkul. It is an admitted position that the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharai are working as Acharyas of various temples and Shrines in Gujarat and other ...
The Inspector of Factories and anr. Vs. Gordhandas Purshottam Das
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR252
V.R. Shah, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Inspector of Factories, Junagadh, and the State of Gujarat against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot District, Gondal, in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1968, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from a charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 7(1) of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The respondent is the occupier and main partner of 'Ramesh Textile' act Jetpur. This 'Ramesh Textiles' carried on a business of printing Saris in its premises at Jetpur. The premises consist of a building and an open compound enclosed by walls. These premises belong to Dinesh Dying Works from whom 'Ramesh Textiles' has taken the premises on rent. This 'Ramesh Textiles' obtained a licence as required under the provisions of the Act, but no ren...
Jethalal Tribhovandas Valand Vs. Vipinchandra Ramanlal Gandhi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-14-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR58
D.P. Desai, J.1. This revision application raises a question of interpretation of Section 2(3) and Section 2(4) as well as Section 18(1) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, hereafter referred to as the Act. For this limited purpose, facts may be stated briefly.2. The petitioner is the partner of a hair cutting saloon and as such owner of that shop which was registered under the Act as an establishment. Its weekly holiday was notified as Tuesday. On 1-8-1967, which was Tuesday, Inspector under the Act visited the shop at about 8-30 a.m. and found that the shop was open and the petitioner and his brother who was also a partner in the same shop, were shaving beards of two customers. Therefore, a complaint was filed, against the petitioner and his brother for an offence punishable under Section 52(b) as a result of contravention of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. After the complaint was filed the same was withdrawn against the brother of the petitioner and the case p...
Madanlal Mathurdas Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR171
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition raises a question of law which depends for its determination more on the law of partnership than on the law of Income-Tax. There was in Gondal a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gondal firm') which carried on business in the name of Messrs. Govind Oil Mill. The Gondal firm consisted of two groups of partners, each group having an equal one half share in the profits and losses of the firm. One group consisted of the petitioner, his brother Liladhar Madanlal and his minor son Jaishanker Madanlal, while the other group consisted of Kishan Gopal Mahavirprasad and Ghanshyam Agrawal, who were benamidars of a firm called Messrs. Swarupchand Prithviraj and Company, Bombay, as subsequently held by the Revenue authorities. There was some dispute between the parties as to when the Gondal firm was dissolved. Was it dissolved at the end of Samvat Year 2008, i.e. October 1952 as claimed by the petitioner or at the end of Samyat Year 2009, i.e., 6t...
Marghabhai Babarbhai Patel Vs. R.M. Parikh, Income-tax Officer, Ward-b ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR418(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. 1. One Babarbhai Hirabhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as the deceased Babarbhai) was at all material times a permanent resident of Cambay which was a Native State prior to its merger with the then Province of Bombay. The deceased Babarbhai had deposited from time to time diverse sums of money with various firms which included Messrs. Das and Company of Bombay. Tax at the appropriate rate prevalent at the relevant time on the amount of interest on these deposits was deducted and paid by Messrs. Das and Company and other firms on behalf of the deceased under section 18(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Since the deceased has no other income in British India apart from the amount of interest on these deposits, he was not assessed to tax by the British Indian authorities until the merger of Cambay with then Province of Bombay. Subsequent to the merger, some inquiry was made by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Petlad Circle, Petlad, and pursuant to the inquiry, the d...
J.D. Kapadia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR938
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to the pension rights of a person belonging to the former Indian Civil Service who continued lo serve under the Government of the Dominion or the Government of a Province after the Independence of India. Prior to 15th August 1947 when India became independent, there was a Civil Service of the Crown in India known as the Indian Civil Service to which recruitment was made by the Secretary of State for India. The petitioner was appointed to the Indian Civil Service by the Secretary of State on 12th October 1931 and like all persons recruited to that Service, he was required to enter into a covenant by means of an Indenture executed between himself and the Secretary of State. He was allotted to the Civil Service Cadre in the Province of Bombay and he continued to serve in connection with the affairs of the Province of Bombay upto the date when power was transferred under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The effect of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »