Gujarat Court February 1980 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.
Central Bank of India Vs. Ghanshyamlal Mohanlal Jani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR145
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal by the Central Bank of India which has been directed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Surendranagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 1973, to pay to its ex-employee, respondent-plaintiff G.M. Jani, a sum of Rs. 8,800/~ in connection with his Provident Fund dues, and Rs. 14,000/- in connection with his claim for gratuity, is as to whether the learned trial Judge was in error in negativing the plea of the appellant Bank that it was entitled to withhold the aforesaid amounts. The suit giving rise to the appeal was instituted by the plaintiff, an ex-officer of the Bank, seeking a declaration that an order of dismissal from service passed by the Bank on Sept. 13, 1969 was illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff also prayed for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 8,800/- which was at his credit in his Provident Fund Account and a sum of Rs. 14,000/- in connection with g...
Sarabhai M. Chemicals Private Ltd. and Telerad Private Ltd. Vs. P.N. M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: [1980]126ITR1(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In both these special civil applications the respective petitioner-company challenges the notice of acquisition respectively issued to it by the first-respondent, the competent authority, under the provisions of Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The notices initiating acquisition proceedings under Section 269D(2) of the Act have been issued in respect of a transfer. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1394 of 1973 is the transferor and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1481 of 1973 is the transferee in respect of the transaction which was by means of a conveyance of sale dated March 30, 1973. Since both these special civil applications arise from the same bundle of facts and raise the same questions of law, it will be convenient to dispose of both of them by this common judgment. The transferor company is, what is known in the languageof company law, a holding company and the transferee company is its wholly-owned subsidiary. There is no dispute ...
Kalubhai Rambhai Katariya Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1238; (1981)GLR5
S. H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is the Chairman of the P. W. D. Committee of Bhavnagar District Panchayat. He is engaged in the transport business at Dhasa in Bhavnagar District. On 26th February, 1979, the externing authority-respondent No. 2 issued to him notice to show cause why he should not be externed Irani Bhavnagar District and other contiguous districts under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Notice to show cause contained as many as 26 allegations against him. The petitioner filed a representation against it and sought an opportunity to examine witnesses. He examined as many as 47 witnesses. Thereafter he made an application to summon further witnesses. However, it was turned down. Then he applied for time to call those witnesses. that application was also turned down He thereafter applied for certified copies of the evidence of the witnesses whom he had examined. that application was rejected. On 23rd November, 1979, the impugned order of externment was made agains...
State of Gujarat Vs. Keshavlal Kalidas Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ551; (1980)2GLR26
M.K. Shah, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal from an order of acquittal passed in appeal by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge at Ahme-dabad in criminal appeal No. 31 of 1977, whereby he set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against respondent No. 1 that is the original accused who was tried for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(iii) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('the Act').2-5. xx xx xx xx6. Mr. Chhaya has raised several points concerning the question as to whether it would be incumbent on the Director, Central Food Laboratory or the Public analyst to positively mention the coal tar dye used so as to enable the Court to hold as to whether it was non-permitted coal tar dye or not. Mr. Shethna also made his submissions to controvert the position taken up by Mr., Chhaya in this connection. But in our opinion, in view of a further point raised by Mr. Shethna with regard to the breach o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›