Gujarat Court September 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.
D.S. Patel and Co. Vs. Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas1098(Guj); (1972)0GLR33
Mehta, J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions challenge the validity of sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (which is hereinafter referred to as the 'State Act'), and the notifications issued by the State Government under these sections. In Spl. C.A. 638/69 the petitioners has further challenged the validity of section 18A and 18E(1)(c) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951 (which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act') as well as the notifications issued under section 18A thereof. 2. So far as Spl. C.A. 589/69 is concerned, the facts are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and the third respondent, the New Manekchowk Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The said company owns a factory, namely, a textile mill, which has 628 looms including 100 automatic looms and is running about 28,000 spindles. This company is found to be employing about 1,70...
Hajam HusseIn Dadu and anr. Vs. Bai Kunverbai Prabhudas Decd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR610
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These two companion matters raise two common questions as to whether the consent decree operates as a lease and whether it contains a penal clause so that the equitable jurisdiction of the Court may be invoked to give relief against forfeiture or the penalty. In both these matters Mr. Mehta had amended the memo of appeal for raising the wider question as to whether the consent decree in these two cases which is passed under Section 12 of the Rent Act and not under Section 13 would be null and void as it is alleged to have been passed solely on the consent terms without the Court applying its mind to the relevant question. This third contention was raised at no stage of the proceeding and in the view which we are taking it would not be necessary to go into the third larger question in both these matters. Besides, the decree-holder would be seriously prejudiced if these contentions would be allowed to be raised at this stage because he would have no opportunity to show t...
Rasiklal Patel and ors. Vs. Kailasgauri Ramanlal Mehta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR355
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These two petitions raise an interesting question of law as to the Constitutional validity of sees. 96 to 102 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Special Civil Application No. 452/68 arises out of a dispute between a Cooperative Society and its members while Special C.A. No. 1188/69 arises out of a dispute between a Cooperate Society and a non member. Since different considerations may apply in determining the constitutional validity of sees. 96 to 102 according as the dispute is between a Co-operative Society and a member or between a Co-operative Society and a non-member, it is necessary to notice separately the facts of each petition.2. Re : Special Civil Application No. 452/68 : The second respondent Society is a Co-operative Society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and deemed to be registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioners are members of the second respondent Society and they claim t...
Kashiben Ambalal Chhotalal Patel and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj224; (1971)GLR540
Mehta, J. 1. The petitioners in this matter are the family members of one Ambalal Chhotalal Patel, and the point which is raised by them in this petition is whether the lands admeasuring 48 acres and 36 gunthas found surplus under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), can be acquired without issuing the notices to them under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the said Act.2. Short facts relating to this petition are that Ambalal Chhotalal Patel is the husband of petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. It is said that various lands held by Ambalal Chhotalal Patel were partitioned as early as 30th July, 1956 by a regular deed of partition, which was also registered. After the said partition, relevant entries were made in the Record of Rights and were certified on or about 24th February, 1958.3. Thereafter Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 came into force on 24th August, 1961. The lands in question situated ...
K.A. Patel and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: (1971)ILLJ469Guj
ORDER1. In the special petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, all the 16 petitioners who have been working as 'Aval Karkuns' in the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat, have approached this High Court for a writ of mandamus against the State of Gujarat and the Collector of Ahmedabad to treat the circular at annexure C to the petition as invalid and inoperative and they have asked for an order, direction or writ, directing the Collector of Ahmedabad to forbear from acting upon or implementing the circular at annexure C. They have further prayed for an order directing the respondent No. 2, the Collector, to forbear making orders of reversion against the petitioners merely on the grounds that they have not passed Revenue Qualifying Examination. 2. The facts leading to this petition may be shortly stated. All the petitioners joined the service of the State Government as clerks in the then State of Bombay and their periods of service vary from 16 to 24 years. All the p...
Bai Damyanti W/O. Madhusudan Laxmishanker Vs. Pushpaben Gunvantrai Rav ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR523
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This revision application raises a vexed question as to the crucial date viz. 'the date of the order' within the meaning of the second proviso to Section 145(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code with reference to which the inquiry as to possession has to be made when the applicant was not in actual possession and had been forcibly dispossessed. The section in terms states the 'crucial date' as the date of the preliminary order passed under Section 145(1), and that the fact of actual possession has to be inquired with reference to that date, or if a person had been dispossessed within two months next before this date, he is to be treated as if in actual possession on that date. It is however contended that this section would have to be liberally construed and this two months' period, which is allowed by the Legislature for doing justice to a man dispossessed, must be extended by relating back the preliminary order to the date when the petition is filed or when the Magistra...
Jashwant Khimabhai Bariya and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR546
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A question of great relevance at the momentous times we are passing through is raised in this revision application. The question raised is: 'If leaders of a political party take out an avowedly peaceful procession in exercise of their right of peaceful protest in regard to a public question and if in the course of that procession some undesigned stone-throwing takes place, can the leaders be said to be the members of an unlawful assembly?' It arises on the following facts.2. On September 8, 1968 at about 8-00 p.m. a public meeting sponsored by petitioner No. 1 was held under the auspices of Samyukta Socialist Party at the Botad Chowk in the town of Gadhada. It appears that there were certain grievances against the Mamlatdar in respect of the discharge of his public duties. There were also some grievances against one Laxmanbhai who was at the material time the President of the Taluka Panchayat of Gadhada. The meeting was called to ventilate the grievances of the publi...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat I Vs. Anarkali Sarabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR375(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference arises out of assessment to wealth-tax made on the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant valuation date being 31st March, 1956. The assessee is the daughter of one Bharatidevi Sarabhai. She is the beneficiary under two trust deeds, one dated 3rd November, 1956, made by Gautam Sarabhai, another maternal uncle of the assessee. Both the trust deeds are in identical terms barring only the difference in the name of the settlor and the period of distribution and it would, therefore be sufficient to made a reference only to the terms of one of the trust deeds, namely, that made by Gautam Sarabhai and whatever we say in regard to the terms of that trust deed it must apply equally in regard to the terms of the trust deed made by Vikram Sarabhai. By the trust deed Gautam Sarabhai settled certain shares and investments more particularly described in the schedule on the trusts set out in clause 2 of the trust deed. '2. (a) The trustees shall pa...
Chehrabhai Kalubhai Vs. Govindbhai Hirabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj227; (1971)0GLR757
ORDER1. This Special Civil Application arises under the following circumstances: -2. The elections of Village Panchayat of Endala village were held on March 15, 1970 (erroneously mentioned as March 18, 1970 in para 2 of the petition). In accordance with the provisions of S.44 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the first meeting of the newly elected Panchayat was to be held on April 8, 1970, for the purpose of electing the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch for Endala Village Panchayat. Notices for that meeting were not properly served to the members of the Panchayat and hence the meeting was proposed to held on April 15, 1970 at 3 p.m. Notices were issued accordingly and one Chauhan, Agriculture Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Patan, was appointed as the Presiding Officer for that meeting. The petitioner filed his nomination for the post of Sarpanch on April 14, 1970. Under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats (Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch, Chairman and Vi...
Vrajlal Trikamlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR299(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference arises out of assessment to income-tax made on a firm called Messrs. Vrajlal Trikamlal for the assessment year 1962-63, the corresponding account year being Samvat year 2017. Prior to his death, which occurred on 29th May, 1949, one Vrajlal Trikamlal was a partner in the assessee-firm and at the time of his death, there was a certain credit balance in his account in the books of account of the assessee-firm. Vrajlal Trikamlal died without leaving a widow or any children with the result that his brother, Mulchand Trikamlal, inherited the properties left by him as his only heir. On the death of Vrajlal Trikamlal, Mulchand Trikamlal was admitted as a partner in the assessee-firm but the credit balance in the account of Vrajlal Trikamlal in the books of account of the assessee-firm continued to stand in the same name. Every year, the assessee firm credited interest in the account standing in the name of Vrajlal Trikamlal and such interest was shown by M...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »