Gujarat Court August 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.
R. Balasubramanian and ors. Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd., Okha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)1GLR787; (1978)ILLJ432Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The three petitioners workmen challenge in this petition the order of the Industrial Tribunal, dated April 30, 1978, holding that their complaint under S. 33A was not tenable because they were not proved to be protected workmen at the time when the order of dismissal was passed on the morning of November 28, 1972 and, therefore, there was no contravention of S. 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. The three petitioners were the office bearers, viz., president, vice-president and treasurer, respectively, of the concerned union which was the sole union at the time in this company. This trade union, viz., Carborundum Universal Union, Okha, came into existence since November, 1970. For the previous year, these three petitioners were recognised as protected workmen as per the decision of the conciliation officer, dated December 23, 1971. For the year in question, before the requisite time of 30th September, 1972, i.e., on Sept...
State of Gujarat Vs. Amarsingh Chothabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR96
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The state has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the court of the J.M.F.C. Lunawada in Criminal Case No. 559/73 of his file, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent-accused is a police constable and was attached at the relevant time to the office of the P.S.I. Lunawada. On 7th February 1973 at 7-30 p.m. the P.S.I. Balkrishna Shan-Karrao, whose deposition appears at ex. 15 called the accused to take his explanation as he was absent on his duty on the night round of 3rd February, 1973. It is said that when the accused appeared before the P.S.I, he was speaking at random and his mouth was smelling of alcohol. A Rojkam of his physical condition was thereupon made as found at ex. 16. The accused was thereafter sent to Dr. Rajbala Kantilal for medical examination. The doctor examined him at 8-45 p.m. on the same day. The ...
Collector of Jamnagar and anr. Vs. Mrs. Tarabai Lalji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR941
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This Civil Application raises an interesting question which I had no occasion to decide at any time perior to this.2. The facts leading rise to this civil application are as follows: the opponent moved the court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing an arbitration agreement. It was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1968, in the Court the Civil Judge, Senior Division Jamnagar. Mr. D.A. Chhaya, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar, passed on Ex. 199 an order in the said suit, appointing Mr. N.J. Mankad, as the sole arbitrator in place of salt Commissioner of India, Jaipur. Civil Revision Application No. 460 of 1973 was filed in this court by Mrs. Tarabai Lalji, who moved the Court for filing an arbitration agreement, to set aside that order. In that revision application, the order appointing Mr. N.M. Miabhoy as an arbitrator in place of Mr. N.J. Mankad came to be passed on the basis of the consent terms. Material term No. 2 which is r...
J.M.A. Raju Vs. Krishnamurthy Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Guj72; (1976)GLR210
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The main question with which we are concerned in the present reference to the Full Bench is whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Prabhudas v. Bhogilal, (1967) 8 Guj LR 649 : : AIR1968Guj236 is overruled by necessary implication by, the decision of the Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapu : [1973]1SCR697 .2.This Civil Revision first came up for final hearing before one of us on October 16, 1973 and at that time in view of the decisions in Civil Revn. Appln. No. 731 of 1967 decided on 11-1-1967 (Guj) and M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapu : [1973]1SCR697 (supra) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Prabhudas v. Bhogilal : AIR1968Guj236 (supra) the matter was referred to a Division Bench. Thereafter the matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of M. U. Shah and B. K. Mehta, JJ and by their referring judgment dated December 19, 1973 the Division Bench referred the case to larger bench in view of the decision of ...
Rabari Hamira Hengol Vs. Bai Mani Kasala and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR729
C.V. Rane, J.1. This judgment will govern the disposal of Second Appeal's Nos. 666 and 667 of 1969 which arise out of Civil Appeals Nos. 32 of 1968 and 31 of 1968 respectively, decided by the learned District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur on June 16, 1969 and June 25, 1969 respectively.2. Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and their deceased brother Koli Ishwar Kasala (respondent No. 3) had filed two suits being regular Civil Suits Nos. 32 of 1966 and 33 of 1966 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Deesa to obtain a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the deceased Ishwar Kasala in favour of the defendants on 2-4-1962 were null and void and also to recover possession of the suit fields from the defendants. During the pendency of the suits, Ishwar Kasala gave an application to the trial court to indicate that he wanted to withdraw the suits. The learned trial judge ordered that Ishwar Kasala should be transposed as defendan...
Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat Overruled
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC140(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. The applicant in this reference is a public limited company and its business is to manufacture textiles for sale. While making the assessment for the years 1967 and 1968, on the total turnover of the applicant-company for the purpose of sales tax, the taxing officer found that the goods worth Rs. 53,743 were purchased by the applicant-company against certificates in form C for use in manufacture of goods for sale even though the purchases were not included in the certificate of registration. He also found that out of the goods purchased under the certificate in form C for use in the manufacture of the goods for sale, colours and chemicals worth Rs. 72,600 were used by the applicant-company for processing the goods belonging to Messrs. Gaekwar Mills Ltd., Bulsar, and that the colours and chemicals worth Rs. 54,050 were sold by the applicant-company to the said Gaekwar Mills. The taking officer, therefore, imposed penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, ...
The Gaekwar Mills Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC129(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. This reference arises out of the assessment of sales tax for the calendar years 1965 and 1966. During the course of the said assessment, the sales tax authorities have imposed penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the footing that the applicant-assessee has failed, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for the purpose mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act. The Tribunal has, in this reference, referred the following two questions for our opinion : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no reasonable excuse on the part of the applicant within the meaning of section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and thereby confirming the imposition of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, though the penalty was reduced to certain extent (ii) Whether, on a tru...
Chaturbhai Ashabhai Parmar Vs. Motibhai Jorabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR719
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant of S. No. 1943/1-4 of Borsad in Kaira District. It admeasures A.G.O. 39. Respondent No. 1 is the landlord. The landlord obtained an exemption certificate in respect of the land in question under Section 88C of the Bombay tenancy and agricultural lands Act, 1948. Thereafter the landlord terminated the tenancy of the tenant and filed a suit for possession under Section 32T. The Mamlatdar decided that suit and made an order directing the tenant to hand over possession of half the land to the landlord. The tenant appealed against that order to the Deputy Collector Kaira, by his order dated 25th April 1968 he dismissed that appeal. The tenant challenged the appellate order in a revision application which he filed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal dismissed it on 9th April 1969.2. On 16th June 1970 possession of half the land was taken from the tenant and handed over to the landlord.3. Before possession of half the land wa...
Panchmahals Steel Limited Vs. Universal Steel Traders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas706(Guj); (1975)GLR942
Desai, J.1. By these two applications, a new dimension is being added to the varied jurisdiction enjoyed by a company judge in company matters, and a question of considerable importance and magnitude has been raised, which, on investigation, is found to be not hedged in by any precedent. A brief statement of facts relevant to the topic would be sufficient to focus the attention not only on the legal, but also economic, social and sociological aspect of the question raised herein. 2. Panchmahals Steel Limited, hereinafter referred to as the company, was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 12th September, 1972, initially as a private limited company, but has been subsequently deemed to be a public limited company, limited by shares. The registered office of the company is situated at G.I.D.C. estate, Kalol, district Panchmahals. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 15 lakhs divided into one lakh equity shares of Rs. 10 each and 5,000 cumulative redeemable preference sh...
Tasveer Kendra, Chauta Bridge, Surat Vs. the State of Gujarat, by the ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC238(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal has posed the following three questions in this (1) Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Tribunal was right in holding that the transactions which were subject matters for determination in Second Appeal No. 25 of 1972 amounted to Sales liable to tax (2) Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the transactions which were subject matters for consideration in Second Appeal No. 25 of 1972 amount to works contract not liable to tax at all (3) In the alternative whether the transactions which were subject matters for consideration in Second Appeal No. 25 of 1972 were divisible partly amounting to sales liable to tax in so far as the value of photographic materials used in preparing photo prints and developing negatives is concerned and partly amounting to works contract in so far as art and labour in taking photo-print and developing its negative are concerned 2. The assessee dealer was running a studio kno...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »