Gujarat Court July 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.
The Ajit Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. R.P. Laxpat, Asstt. Collector Central ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR769
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These two petitions raise an interesting question of law which depends for its determination on the true construction of Rules 10 and 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The facts giving rise to the petitions are almost identical save and except as to dates and amounts and it would, therefore, be convenient if we state the facts of only one petition, namely, Special Civil Application No. 810 of 1965 There are two petitioners in this petition. The first petitioners are owners of a textile mill situate in the City of Ahmedabad while the second petitioner is a partner of the Managing Agents of the first petitioners. The first petitioners manufacture cotton fabrics in the textile mill and since cotton fabrics are excisable goods, the first petitioners hold a licence for manufacture of cotton fabrics duly issued under the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944. During the period 1st August 1961 to 30th November 1963 which is the period with which we are concerned in this ...
Khoja Mushabhai Gulamhuseinbhai and anr. Vs. the Charity Commissioner, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj230; (1971)GLR765
S.H. Sheth, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the orders of summary dismissal recorded by Mr. Justice J.B. Mehta in First Appeal No. 502 of 1966 and First Appeal No. 503 of 1966.2. The facts of the case in Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 1966, shortly stated, are as under.3. There is a trust registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act known as 'Rahemtullabhai Sidibhai Trust' at Viramgam. The objects of the trust are to enable the devotees to offer Namaz and perform other religious rites. The mode of succession of trusteeship is nomination by majority of Khoja Shiva Isna Sharif Jamat of Viramgam. The opponents were the trustees of the said trust. In or about 1959 they advanced a sum of Rs. 1000/- out of the trust funds to one Alarakha Alibhai. They were, therefore, charged with having contravened the provisions of Section 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and were, in that behalf, prosecuted under Section 66 of the said Act. Criminal Case No. 1746 of 1964 was instituted in that...
Bat Chanchal Guardian of Minor Rameshchandra Pranshanker Vs. Manishank ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR576
S.H. Sheth, J.1. One Madhavram who died on 5th April 1918 had two sons-Pranshanker and Manishanker. Pranshanker died on 20th August 1923 leaving behind him his widow Bai Chanchal. His brother Manishanker survived him. On 14th October 1958 the said Bai Chanchal took the plaintiff in adoption. After his adoption, the plaintiff who was then minor filed through his adoptive mother Bai Chanchal the present suit for partition of joint family properties claiming half share therein and also for taking accounts of the collections made by Manishanker on account of 'Yajaman Vritti'. He also made a claim for Rs. 215-50 being half the amount of compensation of, a certain land in respect of which an award was made for Rs. 431/-.2. The joint family properties in respect of which the plaintiff filed the present suit principally consist of agricultural lands and houses more particularly mentioned in Schedules 'A' and 'B' to the plaint. The present suit was filed on 15th February 1959. The plaintiff was...
Stadfast Paper Mills Vs. D.R. Kohli, Former Collector of Central Excis ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1970
Reported in: 1983LC717D(Gujarat); 1983(12)ELT744(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This petition involves two questions relating to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The first question is whether the demand of differential amount of duty in the sum of Rs. 8,735.85 raised by the Central Excise Department against the petitioner, falls under section 10-A or section 10 of the said Act and the second question is whether the duty on the paper manufactured by the petitioner, is leviable under Entry No. 17(3) or 17(4) of the Tariff Schedule (Schedule No. 1) attached to the said Act. 2. Short facts forming the background of this petition are as under. The petitioner is a partnership firm manufacturing paper having its paper mill at the village Dungra situated in Bulsar District. It is an admitted position that the paper which is manufactured by the petitioner is subject to excise duty at either of the rates mentioned in entries No. 17/3 and 17/4. These entries are as under : 17(3) Printing & Writing paper other so...
Chanchalben Wd/O. Dahyabhai Desaibhai Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR428
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These three petitions raise an important question as to the true interpertation and the scope of Section 88C of the Tenancy Act as to whether the landlord's successor or assignee after 1-4-57 is entitled to get exemption certificate. Section 88C(1) provides that save as otherwise provided by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1960, nothing in Section 32 to 32R (both inclusive) shall apply to lands leased by any person, if such land does not exceed an economic holding and the total annual income of such person including the rent of such land does not exceed Rs. 1500/-. Under Section 88C(2) every person eligible to the exemption provided in Sub-section (1) shall make an application in the prescribed form to the Mamlatdar within whose jurisdiction all or most of the pieces of land leased by him are situate within the prescribed period for a certificate that he is entitled to such exemption. The proviso has been introduced by the Amendment A...
Dahyabhai Somabhai and anr. Vs. Ramaji Kesraji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj232; (1971)GLR809
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order of the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar in Mam. Court Act Case No. 16/65 pronounced on 19th April 1966 and confirmed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar in Revision Application No. 6/66 on 30th September 1966. One Mafatlal Punamchand was the owner of the lands bearing S.No. 1137 admeasuring 1 acre 27 gunthas and S.No. 1138 admeasuring 1 acre and 27 gunthas situated within the revenue limits of Isanpur Mota in Gandhinagar District. Mafatlal Punamchand the owner of the lands sold the same to the petitioners by a sale deed dated 26th April 1956 for a consideration of Rs. 1350/-. The petitioners say that they came into possession of the lands on the date of the sale and since then they are in continuous possession except for a short period in 1964. As this sale was effected on 26th April 1956 that is after 15th June 1955 and before 1st April 1957, when the Amending Act of 1955 came into forc...
Bai Fuli Vs. Tatarpura No. 2 Taluka Vadodarani Vividh Karyakari Sahaka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj236; (1971)0GLR761
ORDER1. The petitioner-plaintiff challenges in this petition the order of Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, dated May 10, 1966 by which the Tribunal has set aside the Registrar's nominee's award in favour of plaintiff and has dismissed the entire suit claim. The Tribunal has held that the payments were made by the society to Mangal Ishwar both under the authority of deceased and as nominee of the deceased and therefore the society had discharged its liability to the deceased. Deceased member Mathur Jibhai expired on March 3, 1961. There were amounts to his credit in respect of cotton sold to the Society by this member. There is no dispute as regards the first payment of Rs. 1200/- which the nominee had found to have been made to the deceased himself on January 9, 1961. The other payments which are in dispute are of Rupees 600/- on February 5, 1961 and Rs. 400/- on March 3, 1961. These payments have been made to Mangal Ishwar on the authority in writing of the deceased, dated January...
Chimanlal Maganlal Shah Vs. Shantilal Chhaganlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR229
A.D. Desai, J.1. This revision application raises an interesting question of construction of Section 13(1)(hh) read with Sub-section (3-A) of the said section of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The opponent-original plaintiff was the owner of two shops bearing Gram Panchayat Nos. 630 and 631, situated in village Thasra (Shethwada), District Kaira. The plaintiff was doing business in the shop bearing Gram Panchayat No. 630. The shop bearing Gram Panchayat No. 631 was rented by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff was residing as a lessee in a house owned by one Chimanlal Acharatlal. The plaintiff received a notice from his landlord asking him to vacate the premises. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted to demolish both the shops and reconstruct a new building for the purpose of his residence. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the immediate...
Gokaldas Amarshi Vs. Porbandar City Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR603
B.J. Divan, J.1. The second appeal raises an interesting question regarding the imposition of Vehicle Tax by the Porbandar City Municipality, respondent in the second appeal, and the main contention is that the tax was not imposed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the relevant section of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted and applied to State of Saurashtra. In the Special Civil Application, the same tax is challenged and besides this ground which has been canvassed in the Second Appeal, the petitioner has raised several other contentions. But when the matter reached for hearing before us, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, stated that apart from the ground regarding non-compliance with the procedure laid down in the relevant section of the Act, he was not relying upon any other challenge to the Vehicle Tax imposed by the respondent Municipality and, therefore, it will be convenient to dispose of both the second Appeal and the Special Civil Appli...
Piush Bhagabhai Vs. D.P. Joshi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1970
Reported in: (1971)ILLJ466Guj
1. The petitioner railway employee challenges in this petition the order of removal passed against him by the respondent No. 1 on January 17, 1966 and confirmed in appeal by respondent No. 2 on August 20, 1966. Mr. Zaveri challenges this order on three grounds :- (1) That there was no inquiry held in the presence of the petitioner and, therefore, the inquiry violates Art. 311(2) as well as the Statutory Rules 1712(2), (2) that there was no personal hearing given even at the second stage of inquiry even though it was asked for; (3) that the order was not justified on merits as extraneous consideration has influenced the authority. As Mr. Zaveri should succeed on the first point, it would not be necessary to go into the others contentions of Mr. Zaveri. There is no dispute that no witness was examined in the presence of the petitioner at the inquiry before the competent authority. What was done was that prior statements were read over to the petitioner and he asked to cross-examine tho...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »