Gujarat Court March 1975 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.
Smt. Manjulaben and anr. Vs. C.T.A. Pillay and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ889; (1975)GLR730
A.D. Desai, J.1. In these two petitions what is challenged are the two orders of detention of the two detenus who are detained at the Central Jail, Jaipur under the orders of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act). There is no dispute that both the detenus were at first detained at Baroda under the orders of detention passed under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974, The detenus were first lodged in the Baroda Prison but later removed to the Central Jail at Jaipur, where fresh orders of detention under the impugned Act were served on them. In these writ petitions the petitioners who are the relatives of the detenus seek to challenge constitutionality and legal validity of the impugned Act and the orders of detention dated September 19, 1974, the continuance of emerg...
The New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. Vs. S. Sen, Successor-in-offi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR382
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners of both these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional vires of the Act known as Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) and especially Sections 3, 5 and 6 thereof mainly on the ground that these provisions result in excessive delegation of legislative power to the Central Government and also result in encroachment over states power to legislate on the subject of police. This Act is hereinafter referred to either as the impugned Act or the Act.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioners in both these petitions are limited concerns which run textile mills named the new swadeshi mills and manjushri textiles at Ahmedabad they admittedly belong to Birla group of mills.3. On 13th June, 1967, a first information report alleging the offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 I.P.C., Section 7 of essential commodities Act and Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, was lodged against the management of these two mills an...
Baroda Municipal Corporation Vs. J.D. Desai, Asstt. Judge and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR308
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner in each of these Special Civil Applications is the Municipal Corporation of the City of Baroda and each of these Special Civil Applications has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution challenging the order of the learned Assistant Judge, Baroda, in taxation, appeal matters. The common feature of each of this group of matters is that in each case, the second opponent concerned, being the owner of the property, has got several distinct buildings though standing on one and the same plot of land and the question is whether under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, it was open to the municipal authorities to add up together the rateable values of each of these properties for the purpose of assessment to municipal taxes. We will take up the facts in special civil application No. 118 of 1971 as those facts are typical of the facts in the rest of the cases.2. The second respondent in Special Civil Application No. ...
Baroda Municipal Corporation Vs. Rajababu Bapalal Haribhakti
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR318
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Baroda is the petitioner in each of these Special Civil Applications. The respondent concerned in each of these four matters is the owner of a building within the limits of the corporation. Each owner owns one building but different portions of the building have been let out to different tenants. To take up the facts in one case as illustrative of the rest of the group, we shall take up the facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 1581 of 1972. The owner has a building bearing Municipal Census No. Sh/37 in Baroda. The municipal authorities first arrived at the annual letting value or the rateable value of the premises occupied by each tenant and then totalled up instead of assessing them tenantwise and the owner of the property contended that the respondent had erred in not allowing statutory draw back for the property. The appellate officer of the Baroda Municipal Corporation under Sections 406 and 407 of the Bombay...
Dharamahi Polabhai Vs. Ramjibhai Jivabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: [1975]98ITR85(Guj)
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This revision petition is filed by original defendant No. 1, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amreli, in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 1968, filed by the plaintiff (opponent No. 1), against the petitioner and opponent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2), dismissing the application, exhibit 45. That application was filed on behalf of the defendants of the suit raising objection against the prayer made by plaintiff-opponent No. 1, summoning a clerk of the income-tax department for production of certain records produced in the income-tax proceedings. * * * *2. The learned trial judge negatived the contention of the defendants and ordered the production of these documents relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sivagami Achi v. Ramanathan Chettiar. 3. The learned single judge has referred the matter to a Division Bench, and that is how the matter has come to us. 4. Mr. Suresh M. Shah, appearing for the peti...
Arun Mills Ltd. Vs. Dr. Chandraprasad C. Trivedi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR291
T.U. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of the judgment and order recorded by the presiding officer, 3rd Labour Court, Ahmedabad in recovery application No. 289/67 which was filed under Section 33C(2) of the industrial disputes Act, 1947 (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned judge of the labour court has allowed the claim of Dr. Chandraprasad C. Trivedi, who is respondent in Spl. C.A. No. 395/71 and petitioner in Spl. C. A. No. 511/71 so far as the bonus amount is concerned, but has disallowed his claim for dearness allowance, with the result that both the parties before the learned judge of the labour court, have preferred these cross applications.2. Short facts of the case are that Dr. Chandraprasad c. Trivedi who is hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was in the part time employment of the arun mills ltd., which is hereinafter referred to as the mills and was drawing the basic pay of Rs. 175/- per month and a fixed amount of Rs. 40/- as dearness all...
Namamal Pessumal and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1975
Reported in: (1975)16GLR871
M.C. Trivedi, J.1. The applicants have filed this revision application against the order, dated 4th November 1974, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narol, in Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 1974, which was filed in his Court, against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dehgam, on deputation to Narol, on 6-8-74, below application, Ex. 6, in Criminal Case No. 891 of 1973. It was a case filed against the applicants for offences under Sections 477, 506, etc. of the Indian Penal Code. It was filed on a police report. The complaint of the offence was filed in the police station on 3-3-73. The police took cognizance of the offence and carried out investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants on 13-4-73. Admittedly, it was filed before the coming into force of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the new Code) which came into force from 1-4-74 Admittedly, the offence under Se...
Laxman Popatbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)GLR370; (1976)IILLJ208Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This is one of the most unfortunate cases where a Government servant after he attained the age of superannuation in 1958 has still not been able to recover his full pension and gratuity as per the relevant service rules because of the various infructuous proceedings which were attempted against him. 2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under : The petitioner was born on October 9, 1903 and was employed as a Civil Engineer in the then Jamnagar State service on December 30, 1926. He was absorbed in the Saurashtra State service as a Deputy Engineer on April 1, 1948. The Government of Saurashtra had issued relevant Pension and Gratuity rules for the Government servants by the Government Resolution No. 12 of 1948 on October 19, 1949, and subsequently the Liberalised Pension Rules were also applied. The petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer on February 17, 1950, and was confirmed on that post on June 28, 1954. The petitioner reached the ag...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›