Gujarat Court April 1975 Judgments
Baroda Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Baroda Spg. an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas1(Guj); (1976)1GLR555
D.A. Desai, J.1. This summons is taken out by the official liquidator of the Baroda Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (In liquidation) for deciding the following question : 'Whether the amount standing as credit balance in the account of credit society (The Baroda Spinning and Weaving Mills - Rajratna Sheth Jhaverchand Laxmichand - Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.) is trust money, not forming part of the assets of the company and that the society ranks outside winding up or Whether the amount is part of the assets of the company and distributable as such in the course of winding up ?' 2. On a petition filed by Western India Dye-stuff Corporation being Company Petition No. 6 of 1967 presented on 8th March, 1967, the Baroda Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 17th April, 1968, and the official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator of the company. The liquidator proceeded to take into its custody all th...
Tag this Judgment!Madhuben Mahendra Goswami Vs. Mahendra Amrutgargoswamt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR422
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the original respondent-wife against the opponent-husband against the order passed by the learned district judge, Rajkot, in civil Appeal No. 61 of 1973, below application, ex. 19, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-wife, stating that the interim alimony awarded comes to Rs. 650/-for the period between 1-8-1973 and 31-8-1974 and Rs. 150/-for the appeal costs. The total amount thus awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, comes to Rs. 800/-. Opponent-husband, who was appellant in the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1973, has not paid anything. So, he may be directed to pay that amount and till that amount is not paid, the hearing of his appeal should be stayed.2. The learned District Judge has dismissed this application on the ground that it will not be in the interest of the petitioners-wife to stay the hearing of the appeal filed by the husband against the decree of restitution of conjugal ri...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal Chandulal Shah Vs. the New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturin ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR749
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Has the Civil Court jurisdiction to entertain an employee's suit claiming a declaration that an order of transfer passed by his employer is illegal and seeking a consequential injunction? Or is it impliedly barred by the Bombay industrial relations Act of 1946 (B.I.R. Act)? That is the pivotal question' in this appeal arising from an order passed by the learned judge of the city civil court, Ahmedabad, holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction in regard to the subject matter of the suit and that the appellant must approach the labour court constituted under the B.I.R. Act. This question was projected in issue No. 6 which was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned trial judge recorded the finding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear this suit and dismissed the suit in limine. Hence the unsuccessful plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.2. For the purpose of deciding the preliminary issue, the averments made in the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Gordhanbhai Garbadbhai Vs. Patel Bhagwandas Sanabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR326
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of Section Nos. 31,32,33,37 and 39 of village Vantadi under Bhiloda Taluka of Sabarkantha District and of Section Nos. 76,78,79, 86 89 and 91 of village Dhuleta under Bhiloda taluka of Sabarkantha District. All the aforesaid survey numbers of village vantadi admeasure 20 acres and 18 gunthas. All the aforesaid survey numbers of village dhuleta admeasure 56 acres and 29 gunthas. The total is 77 acres-7 gunthas. The respondents are the landlords and they are brothers.2. According to the petitioner, all the aforesaid lands were owned by the respondents and one Fulabhai on 1st April, 1957. The respondents were then minors. However, since one of the co-owners Fulabhai was major, according to the petitioner, the lands vested in him as the deemed purchaser. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the tenancy...
Tag this Judgment!Machi Bhikhabhai Kilabhai Vs. Machiparsottambhai Somabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR405
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the tenant in respect of Section No. 30 of village Bhavanpura in Tilakwada Taluka of Baroda District. The land admeasures 2 acres-33 gunthas. He made an application to the Mamlatdar, tilakwada under Section 70(b) of the Bombay tenancy and agricultural lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the tenancy Act for the sake of brevity) for a declaration that he is the tenant in respect of the land in question. It appears from the record of the case that he also made in those proceedings an application under Clause (nb) of Section 70 of the tenancy Act for issuing a temporary injunction. The Mamlatdar issued the injunction on 30th January, 1974 and restrained Respondent No. 1 from interfering with the petitioners possession of the land in question. Respondent No. 1 appealed to the Collector against that order. The Deputy Collector, Dabhoi admitted the appeal and made on 7th February, 1974 an interim order staying the operation of the injunctio...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Ltd. Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas227(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the Bank of Baroda Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferor-company') for the sanction of the court to a scheme of arrangement for its amalgamation with Mahindra Ugine Steel Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee-company') under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and for consequential directions under section 394 of the Act. * * * *2. I must now turn to the consideration of the question as to whether sanction should be accorded to the scheme. It is well-settled that in exercising its discretion in according sanction, the court will consider, first, whether the statutory provisions have been complied with; secondly, whether the classes were fairly represented by those who attended the meeting and whether the statutory majority were acting bona fide, and, thirdly, whether the scheme is such as a man of business would reasonably approve. Bearing in mind these princ...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Joshi, City Deputy Collector Vs. Shukla Ramanujacharya and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR529
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by our learned brother S.H. Sheth, J., in Spl. Civil Application No. 1438 of 1970 holding that the Respondent No. 2, who is Dy. Charity Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to make an inquiry under Section 22a of the Bombay public trusts Act, (Bombay Act No. XXIX of 1950)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to investigate into the question whether the disputed land which is Section No. 568 of Wadaj is of the ownership of the Government.2. Short facts of the case are that there is a public trust in the city of Ahmedibad named Shri Gaushala Hanumanji Shiv Ganpati Temple. This trust was registered pursuant to an application made in the year 1952 under the provisions of the Act, and amongst the properties, which were said to be belonging to that trust, the disputed property, which heirs Section No. 568 of wadaj was also included in the register as a result of the inquiry which was found then made by the Deputy Char...
Tag this Judgment!Odhavji Narsi Rajgor Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR259
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is one of the owners of S. No. 131 situate in the city of jamnagar. It admeasures 5 acres-37 gunthas. Since 1963 it forms a part of jamnagar municipal area. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his sons partitioned the joint family properties on 13th February 1959. S. No. 131 could not be the subject matter of that partition between them because there was a litigation in relation to it. On 6th September 1971, after the litigation had ended, the petitioner got possession of that land.2. The petitioner alleges that he has been in debts since 1967. His debts include a debt which he owes to the Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. According to the petitioner, he received notices from the bank to pay up the debt which he owes to it. Meanwhile on 12th August 1972 the Gujarat Vacant Lands in urban areas (prohibition of alienation) Act, 1972 came into force (hereinafter referred to as the Vacant Lands Act). The petitioner wanted to sell ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›