Gujarat Court June 1979 Judgments
Chandrakant Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Gadhada Taluka Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR695
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. One cannot ride two horses at a time, true, but can one become a member of two Panchayats at the same time and retain membership of both? Section 22A of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, says 'no.' But what is to happen if one is declared elected uncontested in one, and victorious on counting of votes in another, in case the result of the former is declared later in point of time? Put differently the problem presented by this appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is as to when a person can be said to have become a member of a Panchayat and what would be the legal position if a person is elected to two different Panchayats and the case does not fall under any of the sub-sections of Section 22A which have been designed to meet different situations in order to ensure that no person shall be a member of two Panchayats at the same time.2. The facts are not in dispute. Elections to the Gadhada 'Nagar' Panchayat were scheduled to take place on October 20, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Limited Baroda Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS232D; 1979(4)ELT546(Guj); (1980)0GLR450
1. A short but interesting question as to what is the meaning of the word 'pump' occuring in Item 30-A of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act,1944, arises in this case. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Articles 226 of the Constituion quashing and setting aside the orders of the respondents dated June 16, 1976 and March 31, 1978 and also directing the respondent to the refund the sum, of Rs. 32,74,127.82 paise, being the amount of excise duty which, according to the petitioner, was illegally collected by the respondents and which was paid under protest by the petitioner in respect of sale of accessories effected along with the sale of power driven pupoms where the price of such accessories have been separately shown in the invoices of the petitioner. Teh petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the further amounts which would be so collected during the pendency of this s...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Vyas and anr. Vs. Sudhaben Sukethu Sutaria and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1979
Reported in: 1980ACJ178; AIR1980Guj46; (1980)0GLR229
M.K. Shah, J.1. These two first appeals are filed by the original opponent No. 2 (owner of the vehicle) and the concerned Insurance Company (insurer of the vehicle) against awards given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ahmedabad awarding Rs. 35,728/- with interest and costs to claimant Sudhaben In M. A. C. T. No. I-A/144 of 1971 and also awarding a sum of Rs. 47,500/- to claimant Sukethu in M. A. C. T. Application No. I-A/145/71 with similar order for costs and interest. (Paras 2 to 5)6. Mr. Bhatt in this connection, submits that there is evidence on record showing that the, scooter, at the relevant time, carried four persons though it is not permissible to carry more than two persons including the driver on a scooter as per rules under the Motor Vehicles Act and, that therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that this breach on the part of the driver of the scooter amounted to negligence attributable to the accident itself. In Mr. Bhatt's submission, when a vehicle, meant fo...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Abdul Rehman Hasanbhai and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1979
Reported in: (1980)0GLR677
N.H. Bhatt, J. 1. This is an appeal by the insurance company, opponent No. 3, in the Motor Accident Claim Application No. 118 of 1974 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, that was pleased to award to respondent No. 1, the original claimant, the sum of Rs. 23,000 with 6% running interest from the date of the application and with costs. Respondent No. 2 herein is the driver of the vehicle and respondent No. 3 is its owner. The vehicle involved was rickshaw No. GYB 8042 driven at about 4.30 p.m. on November 19, 1973, on a public road near Kareli Baug, Vadodara, by opponent No. 1, Ganibhai, in the course of his employment with the owner, opponent No. 2, who was the insured of the insurance company, which is the appellant before us. The driver, the owner and the insurance company were made liable for the amount awarded, though initially the claim put forward by the claimant in the petition was Rs. 30,000. 2. The case of the claimant was that on that day he had boarded that r...
Tag this Judgment!Meteor Satellite Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle-ix, Ahm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR311(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is a public limited company having its registered office at Kathwada in Ahmedabad District and the relief which is sought in this writ petition is against the ITO, Company Circle IX, praying that the record and proceedings of the case of the petitioner-company before the respondent may be called for and after looking into the same, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or instruction or any order of the same nature under art. 226 should be issued quashing the order of the ITO, Ex. 'N', whereby the ITO has refused to issue tax clearance certificate to the applicant. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, instruction or direction of the same nature directing the respondent to promptly grant the tax clearance certificate as prayed for by the applicant. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : By a letter dated April 27,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Amratlal Sodhan Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1979
Reported in: (1980)1GLR671
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') has filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, Civil Suit No. 2831 of 1972, against defendant No. 1, who is the official liquidator of Anant Mills Ltd., and defendant No. 2, who was the managing director of that company, for recovering a sum of Rs. 2,80,268.34, which, according to the plaintiff, are recoverable as a special contribution from Anant Mills Ltd. under the Employees' State Insurance Act. Anant Mills Ltd. is a company under liquidation. Defendant No. 2 has been joined as a party to the suit because he is the guarantor. The official liquidator representing the company has not filed the written statement in the suit. Defendant No. 2 has filed his written statement and, inter alia, raised the contention that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Issue No. 6 raised by the learned trial judge relates to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and try the su...
Tag this Judgment!Dahyabhai Manchharam Bhandari and anr. Vs. Ratilal Maganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj86; (1980)0GLR557
ORDER1. Respondent tenant filed Civil Suit No. 665 of 1978 in the Court of Small Causes at Surat for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-landlords from constructing upper floors on the premises which are in his possession. The premises in question consist only of the ground-floor structure. In the suit, the tenant made an application for an interim injunction restraining the landlords from constructing an additional structure on the premises in question. The learned trial Judge made the following order on that application:'The defendants are permitted to put up construction of first floor and second floor above Chhapari in question, provided that they do not put any cement pillars in any wall of the Chhapari and provided that they allow 15' x 6' open to sky chowk between the factory premises and Chhapari. The defendants shall not also disturb the roof of the Chhapari. The height of the new construction of the Chhapari shall not exceed 29'-6'' from the ground level.' This o...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Nathubhai Vs. Abdul Razak Shaikh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj88; (1980)0GLR562
ORDER1-2. x x x x x x x x x x x 3. Mr. Sanjanwala who appears on behalf of the defendant has raised the contention that the learned trial Judge was in error in rejecting the application on the ground that it was barred by time as if he had no Jurisdiction to condone the delay. The order which the learned trial Judge wrote below application for setting aside the ex parte decree was fairly long. However, nothing turns upon that order because, having rejected the application for condoning delay, he was necessarily obliged to reject the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, What he stated in his order below application for condoning delay was as follows:'Time cannot be condoned as Art. 123, Limitation Act, is specific.'4. Mr. Sanjanwala has argued that the order made by the learned trial Judge suffered from want of jurisdiction in as much as the learned trial Judge felt that he had no jurisdiction to condone delay on account of the express language used in Article 123 of the L...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›