Gujarat Court November 1979 Judgments
Baroda Rayon Corpo. Ltd. Vs. Hanumansingh Jagnarayansingh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR633
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated in the year 1958 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. After setting up its plant, the petitioner company went into production in December 1962. By 1972 it had about 2000 employees on its pay-roll. At the material time, the respondent was employed in the textile department of the rayon division of the petitioner Company on a monthly salary of Rs. 225/-.2. The case of the petitioner Company is that during the initial years after commencement of production it made no profit; and, that therefore, no demand for bonus was made by the workmen for the first few years. During the account years 1963-64 to 1966-67 no profit having been made, the petitioner Company was not even otherwise liable to pay bonus to its employees in view of the relevant provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereafter referred to as 'The Bonus Act'). The question of bonus was for the first time raised by Baroda Rayon Mazdoor Union for the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Sumatilal Chhotalal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Guj)32; [1980]124ITR862(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. This group of 22 appeals arises out of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, of September 30, 1976, by which the Tribunal set aside the order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Ahmedabad, for acquisition of two immovable properties comprising of the building and the lands, respectively, admeasuring 1,766 sq. yards and 2,984 sq. yards, conveyed by the deeds of conveyance bearing registration Nos. 1314 and 1315 of April 11, 1974, by the respective owners thereof (hereinafter known as 'Manibhai Nagarsheth group' and 'Sahebsing Nagarsheth group') to Kalyanbhai Purshottamdas Fadia and seven others (hereinafter known as 'Fadia group') for consideration of Rs. 7,28,166 and Rs. 12,18,584, respectively. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the Commissioner in this group of appeals. 2. The competent authority by his order of November 7, 1974, recorded the reasons for initiation of the acquisiti...
Tag this Judgment!Aryakumar Mahasabha and anr. Vs. Town Planning Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR543
P.D. Desai, J.1. The first petitioner is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the second petitioner is one of the trustees of the said Trust. The first respondent is the Town Planning Officer, Baroda and the second respondent is Baroda Municipal Corporation.2. The question which arises for determination in this petition is whether the first respondent has performed the duty cast upon him under Section 32(1)(vii) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and, if so, whether the duty has been performed in accordance with law and within the framework of the statute which conferred the duty.3. A few facts require to be set out to appreciate the point. The petitioner-Trust, which appears to run several institutions with a view to dispensing education and knowledge and in order to instruct and enlighten women in various walks ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandanben M. Nagrashna and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR434
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Believe it or not, it is seriously contended that additional payment by way of special pay made to a Govt. Servant for the burden of additional work imposed on him by the State Government will not qualify for computation of his pension merely because the Government secures reimbursement from a statutory Corporation for such additional payment. And that is why a question pertaining to fixation of the pension payable to a Judge of the Labour Court who retired on July 30, 1969 remained unresolved during his lifetime (he died on June 15, 1975) and is being now resolved in the course of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by the heirs and the legal representatives of the said Official.2. The question is whether in making computation of the pension payable to the official concerned, special pay paid to him at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from June 1, 1967 till March 31, 1970 in connection with the functions entrusted to him as ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1979
Reported in: [1981]47STC212(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. Since the principal question arising in each of these five references is the same question substantially, all these five references were taken up for regular hearing before a Division Bench consisting of two of us (P. D. Desai and B. R. Mehta, JJ.), but thereafter these five matters have been referred to a larger Bench, so that the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khedut Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. v. Stage of Gujarat ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 105 (S.C.).), so far as the five assessees before us, each one of which is a co-operative society manufacturing sugar in the co-operative sector, can be considered. 2. A short historical background is necessary in order to appreciate the contentions raised in this case. In Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1966 decided by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (Divan, C.J., and J. B. Mehta, J.) decided on 1st July, 1968, the assessee was the Khedut Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. In that reference, afte...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai and ors. Vs. Shah Bharatkumnr Ratilal and ors. Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj89; (1980)1GLR103
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion:1. Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Nanumal Rajumal v. Lilaram Vensimal : (1977)18GLR858 is a, good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram. (1976) 1 SCC 85V 2. If a statutory tenant has also an estate and is heritable and transferable, would it require a notice for determination of that estate as prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. The above two questions arise in the following circumstances:The deceased father of the plaintiff land lords, who are the petitioners before us, filed H. R. P. suit No. 5218 of 1965 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1975 arises, in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad against the defendant-tenants who are the respondents herein, for possession of the residential premises bearing municipal census Nos. 2926 and 2923/1 situate in Zaveriwad Kalupur, Ahmedabad, which were taken on leas...
Tag this Judgment!Kuparpal M. Appa and anr. Vs. Dodia Pankajkumar S. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR597
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by the Managing Trustee and the Principal looking after one Secondary School known as Balkrishna High School, in the city of Ahmedabad, challenging the order of the Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, directing the management to compensate the respondent No. 1 under Regulation 33 of the Secondary Education Regulations 1974, for part termination of his employment as a full-time teacher, the part-termination being the appointment as a part-time teacher on his service being terminated as a full time teacher.2. The petitioner admittedly was a full time teacher since the year 1967. When he had joined the High School in question as a High School teacher in the secondary section, he worked as a full time teacher till he was reduced as a part-time teacher with effect from July, 1975. The teacher concerned is Mr. Dodia and will be hereinafter referred to by his name. He had made an application of the Tribunal which came to be...
Tag this Judgment!Miya Dariavkhan Bathubhai Vs. Oza Shankarlal Shambhudas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR354
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The original plaintiff whose suit for redemption of alleged mortgage of an agricultural land came to be dismissed in appeal by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, has approached this Court by way of the present second appeal.2. A few facts leading to this proceeding may be stated at this juncture.3. The plaintiff-appellant alleges that by way of a mortgage by conditional sale the agricultural land bearing No. 1060 admeasuring 2 acres and 28 Gunthas situated on the outskirts of village Chhatiarda in Mehsana Taluka of Mehsana District, was continued in possession of the respondent who were the original mortgagees in possession thereof. According to the plaintiff, originally the suit land was mortgaged with possession on 8th May, 1947 by a registered document Exh. 19 for Rs. 500/- with original mortgagee who was on Shambhubhai Parsottam. The property belonged to Bai Ma Bibi widow of Bakarkhan Bismillakhan whose heir is the present appellant. After the execution of th...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.R. Kulkarni Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR437
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by one Dr. Kulkarni, challenging the appointment of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of the professor of Anatomy at the Government B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad on the ground that the selection of the respondent No. 3 is contrary to the statutory Rules and is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and that the selection of the respondent No. 4 in preference to him was without any application of mind on the part of the Gujarat Public Service Commission in so far as the latter body had not taken into account the past record of the respondent No. 4 visa-vis that of the petitioner.2. A few facts are required to be stated in details in order to comprehend the controversy. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Anatomy at the B.J. Medical College in the year 1960 and his selection was then ratified by the Gujarat Public Service Commission and so he was substantively appointed on 28-12-61 as such. Thereafter, the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Malod Transport Company Vs. Memon Jikarbhai Daudbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR320
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This Revision Application by the original defendant of Suit No. 17 of 1977 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Surendranagar, raises an interesting question regarding the interpretation of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was introduced on the statute book by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 104 of 1976) and which reads as under:3A. Where a party himself wishes to appears as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.The facts in the context of which the aforesaid newly introduced Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code is required to be construed are as under.2. The opponent-plaintiff filed a Suit No. 17 of 1977 for possession of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner-defendant, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent, after serving ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »