Gujarat Court January 1980 Judgments
Cambay Municipality Vs. Vijaykumar Rasiklal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR857
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Cambay Municipality and its Inspector for shops and establishments have filed this petition under the following circumstances.2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 49 are owning and operating power-looms in the city of Khambhat. They have been employing workmen on piece-rate basis. Petitioner No. 2 inspected the premises where these power-looms are situate and found that respondents Nos. 1 to 49 had not been paying to their workmen for the weekly rest day under Section 18 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. Petitioner No. 2, therefore, filed 2227 complaints against 49 power-loom owners in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Khambhat. The learned Magistrate held in all those cases by a common order that Section 18 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXXIX of 1948) was repugnant to Section 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and was, therefore, void. He, therefore, dropped all the complaints under Section 258 of the Code of C...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskerbhai G. Soneji Vs. Manager G.S.F.C.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR937
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Shocking as it sounds to any one having a sense of justice, whether he is a constitutional Pandit or a layman, it has been stubbornly argued with seriousness by a bureaucratic administration that if one of the employees resigns and leaves the service, he can be denied the same salary as is paid toothers. Such a die hard bureaucratic approach on the part of the Manager (Administration), Gujarat State Financial Corporation, has given rise to this petition instituted by an ex-employee who has been brazenly discriminated against in the matter of grant of pay-scales in accordance with Gujarat Civil Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1975 on an altogether irrelevant ground, namely that he had left the service by tendering resignation. It is unfortunate that this approach should be continued to be adopted notwithstanding the observations made by the Supreme Court from time to time which appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Says the Supreme Court in Dilbagh Rai Jerry v. Union o...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Damodardas Vs. Income-tax Officer Ward, a (Company), Rajko ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Guj)1; [1980]123ITR748(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein has filed this special civil application under article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing the decision of the ITO dated December 17, 1977, refusing to award interest on the amount which was claimed by the petitioner. He has also further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued asking the respondent to pay Rs. 9,050 being the interest at the rate of 12 per cent. from April 1, 1975, till the date of regular assessment as computed in Ex. C to the petition. 2. The facts leading to this special civil application are few and simple. The assessee is an individual and Samvat year is his year of account. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76, the corresponding accounting year being Samvat year 2030. The order of assessment in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 was passed on October 3, 1977, and it appears that before the end o...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Rao Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ232; (1980)2GLR926
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a journalist and has been residing in the City of Ahmedabad. It appears that there were some quarrels in the area where the petitioner has been residing. Therefore, one Mr. Ramamurthy lodged information with the police against the petitioner at Naranpura Police Station Ahmedabad. The information disclosed that the petitioner had committed three offences punishable under the I. P. C, One was under Section 352, another was under Section 506(2), and the third was under Section 504 of the Code.. The petitioner was thereupon called to the Police Station and was taken in police custody. Within 24 hours he was produced before the Magistrate who enlarged him on bail. Thereafter the police filed against the petitioner charge-sheet in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, City of Ahmedabad.2. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition in which he prays for quashing the chargesheet filed against him by the police. In support of the prayer which he has made...
Tag this Judgment!Shalibhadra Shah and ors. Vs. Swami Krishna Bharati and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ113; (1980)GLR881
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioner in both these applications is the editor, printer and publisher of a Gujarati Weekly 'AASPASS'. In the issue of 31st July, 1977, of his Weekly, an article appeared under the caption 'why Acharya Rajnishji leaves Pune?' which contained remarks concerning the said religious leader which are stated to be of a scurrilous and defamatory nature, Respondent No. 1 in both the petitions are the devotees of the said Acharya Rajnishji whom they worship as Bhagwan (God). Respondent No. 1 of Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 786 of 1978, filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjan, alleging that the petitioner had by publishing the said article in his Weekly committed offences punishable under Sections 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 1 of the other Miscellaneous Criminal Application filed a similar complaint No. 425 of 1978 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baro...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Makwana Vs. Registrar, High Court of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR796
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Even Homer nods is the moral of this petition challenging an order passed by the Administrative side of the High Court. If a person is asked by an appellate authority to support a reasoned judgment passed in his favour without being told one word about what is wrong with it, can he effectively defend himself Can he avail of the opportunity meaningfully The point is brought home by this petitioner who has been removed from service from his post of Clerk in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khambhalia by way of a disciplinary measure inasmuch as on admitted facts it is manifest that principles of natural justice have been violated by the administrative side of the High Court in passing the impugned order.2. In connection with an incident relating to delivery of muddamal articles to the accused persons in a criminal case a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner, who was at the material time employed as a Junior Clerk in the Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Industrial Estate and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward e (Reven ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Guj)332; [1980]123ITR727(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioners herein have prayed for a declaration that the order of the first respondent dated October 8, 1975, refusing to grant the certificate under s. 230A of the I. T. Act, 1961, was without authority of law and they have prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to issue a certificate under s. 230A of the I.T. Act, 1961, on an application made by the transferor on August 28, 1975. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and/or setting aside the order dated October 9, 1975, passed by the 1st respondent ordering provisional attachment of the plots in question. 2. The short facts leading to this litigation are as follows : Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are different partnership firms duly registered society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The 3rd respondent is a private limited...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Varecha and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR800
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners who are employees of the State of Gujarat challenge in this petition the vires of the proviso to Rule 8(5) of the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'.2. The facts leading to the present proceedings may now be stated in brief:Petitioner No. 1 joined service of the 1st respondent-State of Gujarat as a junior clerk in the Agriculture Department in the office of the Divisional Soil Conservation at Palanpur on July 13,1965. He was confirmed in the said post on January 12,1972. The first petitioner is working on the said post even today. Petitioner No. 2 joined service as a clerk in the District Local Board at Banaskantha as a primary teacher on October 8, 1960. On the introduction of the Panchayati Raj, he was allocated to the District Panchayat, Banaskantha, on April 1, 1963. Petitioner No. 2 even to-day continues as a primary teacher in die service of the Banaskantha District Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Bansidhar Spinning and Weaving Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Offi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Guj)16; [1980]125ITR537(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - The petitioner herein challenges the notices issued under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1970-71. The relevant previous years for these assessment years are the calendar years 1964 to 1969, calendar year being the accounting year of the petitioner-company. The petitioner before us is a private limited company and carried on business of manufacturing textiles. The petitioner-company was registered on October 1, 1963, and came into being on that day. On October 3, 1963, the Petitioner-company purchased textile mills located at Ahmedabad for the aggregate sum of Rs.40,00,000 from Deepak Textile Industries Private Ltd. of Rajkot. The sale deed was executed in respect of lands, plant and part of machinery which was to be treated as immovable property because of the nature of that machinery and these immovable properties were taken to have been sold at the aggregate sum of Rs.4,00,000 by the vendor to the petitioner-c...
Tag this Judgment!Navinchandra Mohanlal Parikh Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Ward-b, Bhavnagar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: [1980]124ITR68(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. The petitioner in these proceedings have challenged notices issued under s. 17(1) of the W.T. Act seeking to reopen the wealth-tax assessments of the petitioner for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The notices are in respect of two plots of land owned by the petitioner in Krishnanagar area in Bhavnagar. He was the owner of plot No. 147 for all the three assessment years in question and another plot, No. 1939A, was purchased after the valuation date relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 was passed and we are concerned with plot No. 1939A only for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. For each of these three years the assessee, the petitioner herein, had submitted wealth-tax returns and along with the wealth-tax returns for each of the three assessment years, valuation reports of a registered and approved valuer, who is approved by the Government of India, was submitted to the WTO. The returns were accepted by the WTO and assessment orders were pass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »