Gujarat Court July 1975 Judgments
Vikas Traders Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC163(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. The Tribunal has posed the following two questions in this reference : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the material on record, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sales of batteries, whether uncharged or charged, both are covered under entry 42B of Schedule C appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (2) If the answer to the first question in so far as it realates to uncharged (dry) batteries is in the negative, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not remanding the case for determining whether the sales of batteries made by the applicant were the sales of uncharged batteries ?' 2. The dealer in question was dealing in spare parts of machinery and tractors. During the relevant assessment periods there were sales of Amco batteries. The contention of the dealer that these batteries fell in the residuary item, entry 22 of Schedule E, having been rejected and the batteries having ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepabhai Ranchhodbhai Vs. Sdtharratllal Mangalbhal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR483
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner was the tenant in respect of 1 acre-27 gunthas of Section No. 878/2 of village Delol in Panchmahals District. The total area of the land in question is 3 acres-14 gunthas one Ramshankar Lallubhai was the original landlord. He was the certified landlord because he had obtained an exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The petitioner was one of his tenants in respect of half the area of the said survey number. One Jhalabhai Gorabhai was the tenant in respect of the other half of the said survey number. They were excluded tenants. Ramshankar filed against both these tenants a suit for possession under Section 32T of the tenancy, Act in 1963. In that suit an order for possession was passed in favour of Ramshankar to whom half the land in possession of each of the two tenants was ordered to be given. It is the case of the petitioner that Ramshankar did not recover possession of half his land from him in...
Tag this Judgment!Amthiben Manganlal Wd/O. Maganlal Pranlal Mistry and ors. Vs. Supdt. G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR910
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The claimants in these two matters have come up in appeal because the Tribunal has rejected the claim for compensation on the short ground that the offending truck in question could not be identified as the O.N.G.C. Truck in question. The claimants in the first matter in respect of death of Maganlal Sanalal Mistry have now confined their claim only to a sum of Rs. 90,000/- while in the other appeal, the claim of the injured claimant Maganlal Motilal Prajapati is of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The accident took place on the Deesa Palanpur Highway at about 10-0 P.M. on July 21, 1969. The deceased Maganlal Mistry and the injured claimant in the other matter Maganlal Prajapati had been given a lift by respondent No. 7. Deputy Engineer Mr. Patel who had gone for a visit on the site at Deesa. On the return journey, after leaving Deesa at about 9-15 p.m. when they had travelled for about 12 miles away between Chandisar and Chadotar villages on the highway in the sim of Badarpura village,...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganbhai Zinabhai Patel and ors. Vs. Vallabhbhalvirambhal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR464
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Respondent No. 2 was the owner of agricultural block No. 15 admeasuring 5 acres-3 gunthas of village Kasad in Olpad Taluka of Surat District. He agreed to sell it to the petitioners and executed an agreement of sale on 6th June 1968. Respondent No. 2 thereafter made an application under Section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1947 to the prant officer, olpad for granting him permission to sell the land in question to the petitioners. On 15th July 1968, Respondent No. 1 made an application to the prant officer, olpad in which he stated that since he has been the owner of contiguous land-block No. 16 the land in question should be sold to him. The prant officer by his order dated 1st March 1969 granted permission to Respondent No. 2 to sell the land in question to the petitioners. On 14th March 1969 Respondent No. 2 executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners paid to Respondent No. 2 the consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Purshottam Vs. Thacker Madhavji Meghaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Guj161; (1976)GLR497
Divan, C.J.1. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 52 of 1972, a Division Bench consisting of myself and P. D. Desai, J., has on July 5, 1973, referred the following three questions to a larger Bench and this Full Bench has been constituted because of that reference:'(1) Whether under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease created by the mortgagee in possession of an urban immovable property would be binding on the mortgagor after redemption of mortgage assuming that the lease is such as a prudent owner of property would have granted in usual course of management?(2) Whether, even apart from S. 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease created in exercise of a general power to grant a lease expressly conferred on the mortgagee under the mortgage deed would be binding on the mortgagor after redemption of the mortgage?(3) Whether a tenant inducted on the property by a mortgagee with possession, whose tenancy is not binding on the mortgagor after redemption of the mortgage, w...
Tag this Judgment!Rajabhai Ranmal Mori and ors. Vs. Members of the Managing Committee of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR583
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners were the members of the Managing Committee of Una Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. At Una in Junagadh District (hereinafter referred to as 'the sangh' for the sake of brevity). Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were elected as members of the managing committee in September 1972. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as a member in September 1973. The term of office is three years from the date of election. On 24th August 1974 the managing committee of the sangh passed the impugned resolution resolving that the petitioners had remained absent from three consecutive meetings of the managing committee held on 18th July 1974, 23rd July, 1974 and 15th August 1974 and that therefore their offices had become vacant. The managing committee of the sangh thereafter co-opted three members in their places.2. It is this resolution which is chillenged by the petitioners-in this petition.3. The sangh is governed, apart from the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the r...
Tag this Judgment!Alembic Chemical Works Co., Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1975
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT258(Guj); (1976)1GLR452
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The short question which arises in this petition is whether the stock manufactured of excisable goods was liable to pay excise duty in force at the date of the removal of those goods from the factory when the exemption was withdrawn. There is no dispute that the petitioner had manufactured the goods 'Protinules' in question before March 1, 1970, and on that stock on its removal from the factory after March 1, 1970, a sum of Rs. 29,369.36 p. had been recovered as the exemption in question was withdrawn by the notification at Annex. B, dated March 1, 1970, by reason of which under Item No. 14, admittedly, Protinules was liable to excise duty on withdrawal of the exemption. As the petitioner's prayer for refund has been rejected by the impugned orders, the present petition has been filed.2. The question which has arisen before us is materially about the rate at which these excisable goods were liable to be charged. These goods became excisable when the relevant tariff Ite...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Solanki, Asst. Collector of Custom Vs. Bai Pali W/O. Shanker Bhul ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR92
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Two questions of great importance stare us in the eyes. Should a smuggler be released on probation merely because she is a widow or a poor agent of the principal offender.? If yes, will the principal offenders not get a licence to indulge in smuggling albeit provided they employ widows, women or poor agents?2. A woman carrier of smuggled gold pleaded, guilty to the charge for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 85 of the gold (control) Act, 1968 and was convicted for the commission of the said offence but was ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on her entering into a bond of Rs. 1,000/- with one surety for a period of one year to appear and undergo sentence if and when called upon to do so during the aforesaid period. The Assistant Collector of Customs has thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer that the, aforesaid order releasing her on probation be quashed and she be sentenced t...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Abdulla Vs. Heirs of Deceased Bai Hoorbai Jama and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1975
Reported in: (1975)16GLR835
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. If the lower judiciary were to make an approach which has been made by the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, the ends of substantial justice are not likely to prevail in the life time of the present generation. This gloomy prognosis of darkness and despair is provoked by the circumstance that the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, has refused to condone a delay of mare five days occasioned on account of the death of the petitioner's child. In Ratanlal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields : [1962]2SCR762 and the State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Ors. : [1972]2SCR874a , the Supreme Court has emphasised the need for interpreting the expression 'sufficient cause' employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in a liberal manner so as to advance the cause of substantial justice particularly when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. The learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, has exhibited a total unawareness about the ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Bhogilal Manordas Vs. the Development Commissioner of Gujarat St ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR724
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This petition has been filed by the sarpanch of Ziila-Vasna village in Chanasma Taluka of Mehsana District against the order of suspension made against him by the District Development Officer, Mehsana under Sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. Respondent No. 3. Is a resident of Zilia village. He was given S. No. 177 of zilia for cultivation by the Government of Gujarat on 30th November 1972. Possession thereof was given to him on 22nd June 1973. It appears that S. No. 177 was a Kharaba or a waste land. Respondent No. 3 therefore cultivated the adjoining land S. No. 210 of zilia-vasna. It was a Gauchar land. The petitioner, therefore, lodged against respondent No. 3 an information before the police sub-inspector, chanasma on 21st July 1973 in respect of certain offences which respondent No. 3 was alleged to have committed. Respondent No. 3 in his turn lodged information against the petitioner and other members of the panchayat for offences ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »