Gujarat Court October 1979 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.
Patel Bhagwanbhai Narottamdas and ors. Vs. Authorised Officer, of the ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR406
A.N. Surti, J.1. The petitioners were aggrieved by the preparation of the Voters' list by the authorised Officer-respondent No. 1, and have filed the present petition for the issue of a writ of mandamous or a writ in the nature of mandamous or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No. 1 to exclude respondents No. 3 to 70 from the final voters list, and to include the names of the members of the Managing Committee of 7 Seva Shakari Mandalies mentioned in para 7 of the petition.2. The petitioners also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamous or a write in the nature of mandamous or any other appropriate writ, order or direction not to hold election of 8 agriculturists constituency of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Visnagar. During the pendency of the petitioner in this Court, this Court did grant the interim relief restraining respondent No. 1 the authorised officer from holding electio...
Surgichem by Its Partner, Natverlal P. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS1D
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India two show cause notices issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Assessment Range-II, Rajkot, under Rule 10A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as well as the orders of adjudication passed against the petitioner by the departmental authorities under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and as finally confirmed by the Central Government in revision as per Annexure D to the petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing Belladonna Plaster 'Porofix'. Adhesive Plaster and porofix Corn tapes. The petitioner is a small scale industry manufacturing the aforesaid articles at Rajkot. The case of the petitioner firm is that so far back as in 1962, the petitioner had inquired of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise,Jamnagar, as to whether surgical dressing were li...
Taraben Ramanlal Modi Vs. Jashbhai Shankerbhai BIn Talsibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj126; (1980)GLR335(GJ)
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. This group of cases have been referred to the Full Bench for deciding the contours of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 11 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976, read with Section 12 thereof. In Rana Mafatlal Gordhanbhai v. Mahendrabhai Babubhai, (1978) 19 Guj LR 529, Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta interpreted these sections and tried to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction between the Civil Court on one hand and the Debt Settlement Officer on the other hand by holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely ousted and It any question under the said Act arises, the Civil Court must stay the suit and direct the party to have the question decided by Debt Settlement Officer. After Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta rendered that decision, the same question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Patel Parshottam Ambavi v Patel Hansraj Valji Bhalodia, (1979) 20 Guj LR 7. The decision rendered by Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta was not Shown to the Divisio...
Rajiv Ramanlal and anr. Vs. Ashok Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR464
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This group of 52 appeals arises out of as many suits filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. They were filed by shareholders of corporate employers in which they challenged the vires of Sections 3 and 6A of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat) Rules, 1962. They contended that the aforesaid provisions were ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the suits were instituted in 1975 and others were instituted in 1976. No evidence was led in the suits. They were decided on the basis of legal arguments advanced before the learned trial Judge. On 2nd September 1978, they were decided by the learned trial Judge by a common judgment. He turned down the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suits. Decrees passed by him in all the suits are challenged by the plaintiffs in these appeals.2.Before we enter upon the examination of the contentions raised by the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›