Gujarat Court December 1980 Judgments
C.V. Pillai Vs. O.N.G.C. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR617
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. It has been urged in all seriousness, amazing as it may sound, that hostile and obnoxious discrimination can be practised by the State with impunity not only without qualms of conscience but even without violating the constitutional mandate embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India if it is blessed by an employees' union which is supposed to safeguard the interest of 'all' the employees and not to promote the interest of 'some' at the cost of others. The argument is that Constitutional safeguards can be waived by the employees if the Union representing them nods its head to the arrangement. In other words, the problem which had surfaced in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by 125 employees of the 0. N.G.C. employed at Central Workshop, Baroda, is whether the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India can be annulled from time to time and can be crazed provided the consent or c...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. M.D. Shah and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR874
S.H. Sheth, J.1. On December 9, 1980 after hearing the learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of Indian Airlines and the learned Advocate who appeared for the other side, we made an order directing Indian Airlines to produce in this Court documents which we specified in that order. We further directed that the said documents shall be produced in this Court on or before December 26, 1980. Indian Airlines has not complied with that order and has filed Civil Application No. 3848 of 1980 in which it prays that this Court should decide certain preliminary questions first and then direct Indian Airlines to produce the documents if it is found necessary.2. The learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of Indian Airlines on December 9, 1980 did not raise the contention which Indian Airlines now seeks to raise. If it was really necessary that certain preliminary issues be decided first before Indian Airlines is called upon to produce the documents specified in that order, then ce...
Tag this Judgment!Amirbibi and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj219; (1981)GLR590
Shukla, J. 1. The Government of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 10-11961, which was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 2-2-1961 for the purpose of acquiring certain lands for the purpose of laying down a circular road for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The concerned parcels of lands were situated in the villages of Danilimda and Vasna. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices to the interested persons and after hearing them declared his award, by which he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. metre and solatium at the rate of 15 per cent and also awarded interest to the claimants. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the award, requested the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, to make a reference to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. The reference was accordingly made and the learned Assistant Judge at Narol heard the Reference Cases, bearing Nos. 11/73, 91113, 7/73, 8/73 ...
Tag this Judgment!Rainbow Surgical Dressing Mfg. Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR632
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners have been manufacturing gauzes and bandages. The process of manufacture has been described in paragraph 1. 1 in the petition. The petitioners have averred that they purchase grey powerloom cotton fabrics which are suitable for being processed into surgical absorbent gauzes and surgical roll bandages. These, grey power-loom cotton fabrics are treated by them in their factory and the end-product which comes into existence is the absorbent gauzes or roll bandages. The treatment which they impart in their factory to grey powerloom cotton fabrics consists of the following factors:(1) Absorbency.(2) Removal of foreign matters.(3) Minimising the souring loss.(4) Natural whitening free from optical whiteners.(5) Control of ash contents.(6) Maintenance of the measurements of surgical absorbent gauze and surgical roll bandages.(7) Folding, rolling and cutting of gauzes and bandages.(8) Packing of gauzes and bandages.That the petitioners have been purchasing grey ...
Tag this Judgment!Nafisaben W/O BadrudIn Tofafarosh Vs. John Alias Zenub Abdulkadar Babu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR674
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner in these proceedings is the original first defendant. The first respondent is the original plaintiff and respondents 2, 3 and 4 were original defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The name of respondent No. 2 was deleted after this Civil Revision Application was filed. The plaintiff filed a suit against the four defendants in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division. Surat. That suit was Regular Civil Suit No. 1624 of 1972. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that he was the owner of a building situated in Surat. On the western side of the second floor of that property, one Sakinabarui Gulamhusen Songadhwala was the occupant and she was the statutory tenant in respect of those premises. Sakinabanu died on September 2, 1972. Sakinabanu had no son and the defendants to the suit, namely, her daughter, her daughter's son and other relations who were defendants in the suit had, according to the plaint, come to the suit premises only to attend to the ob...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavsing Kandhaji Rajput Vs. Bapalbhai Mastibhai Khokhar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Guj111; (1981)GLR672
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is the creditor. He has filed this petition in which he is challenging the award made by the Debt Settlement Officer under the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Officer.2. Respondent No. I made an application to the Debt Settlement Officer for extinguishments of his debts or for scaling them down under, the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976. The debt which he owed to the petitioner amounted to Rs. 2,690/-. He claimed to be a 'small farmer' within the meaning of that expression given in Section 2(p) of the said Act. The Debt Settlement Officer recorded the conclusion that on the 'appointed day' respondent No. I was a 'small farmer' and that his debt was extinguished under S.-3 of the Act.3. The petitioner appealed against that award to the Appellate Officer. The Appellate Officer confirmed the finding that respondent No. I was a 'small farmer' on the 'appointed day' and scaled down the debt to Rs. 1,400/- which w...
Tag this Judgment!Jalal Plastic Industries and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT653(Guj); (1980)2GLR563
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions are manufacturers of plastic bangles. It is not in dispute that plastic bangles are manufactured out of monomer which is technically called methyl methacrylate monomer. It is hereinafter referred to as 'the monomer'. Monomer is of two kinds. It may be virgin monomer if it may be regenerated monomer. Regenerated monomer is produced out of plastic scraps. It is the case of the petitioners that regenerated monomer is either purchased from indigenous manufacturers or it is imported. In some cases, the manufacturers of plastic bangles themselves manufacture it. 2. Until the present dispute arose, the Central Excise authorities had been taking the view that bangles manufactured out of regenerated monomer were not liable to payment of the excise duty under Tariff Item 15A in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but that they fell under residuary item, Tariff Item 68. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Govindbhai Popatbhai Kabaria Vs. Ranchhodbhai Virjibhai Kabaria and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR662
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is the creditor. He has filed this petition in which he is challenging the award made by the Debt Settlement Officer under the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Officer:2. Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 owned to the petitioner decretal Debt amounting to Rs. 7,500/-. They applied to the Debt Settlement Officer under the Act in which they contended that on the 'appointed day', they were 'marginal farmers' and that, therefore, their debt was extinguished. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by executing an agreement of sale had charged their land with repayment of the debt which they owed to the petitioner. The Debt Settlement Officer held that respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were on the 'appointed day' marginal farmers' and that, therefore, their debt was extinguished. He ordered that the agreement of sale which respondents Nos. 1, 1 and 3 had executed in favour of the petitioner had become unenforceable and therefore, void.3. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Kamleshkumar Babulal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 1982CriLJ754; (1981)GLR404
R.C. Mankad, J.1. This Revision Application directed against the judgment and order dt. Oct. 21, 1978 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, confirming conviction of the petitioner (original accused) Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to three months' simple imprisonment and fine Rs. 500/- or in default fifteen day's further simple imprisonment, has been referred to us as the learned single Judge before whom it came up for hearing was of the opinion that there was conflict of views between different Division Benches of this Court as the question whether compliance with provisions of Rule 16(d) of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to us as the 'rules') was required to be proved by positive evidence.2. Facts leading to this revision application are as follows: Respondent No. 2 who is a Food Inspector oi the Ahmedabad Municipal Corpor...
Tag this Judgment!Manek Jamshedji Ratanshah Gheyara Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR829
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Deplorable as it is, it is not realised by many of the trial Judges even so late in day that in Land Acquisition References when market value of land under acquisition is required to be determined by the instances method it has to be done on the basis of the market value reflected in the instances most proximate from the time and situation angle. And that this has to be done by correlating the value reflected in the ideal instance by a process of ratiocination by putting oneself in the shoes of a hypothetical purchaser. What we have realized from a number of judgments we have come across in the course of this sitting, is that so often the trial Judges merely reproduce the evidence at length and thereafter pronounce the market value without undertaking any methodical exercise in correlation or ratiocination. It almost becomes ipse dixit of the trial Judge. To illustrate the point we may refer to what has been done by the learned trial Judge in the land reference givin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »