Gujarat Court April 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.
Shri Vallabh Glass Works Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: 1981LC73D(Gujarat)
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners are manufacturing glass products. Within the meaning of Item 23A in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, they have been manufacturing sheet glass and plate glass and not other glassware or glass products. The petitioners in another factory of theirs have been manufacturing wooden containers for their glass products. The iron strappings are wrapped round the wooden boxes in which their glass products are packed. In regard to wooden containers, the petitioners applied on 21st May 1975 for licence in pursuance of item 68 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They were given the modified licence on 1st September 1975. The factory manufacturing glass products and the factory manufacturing wooden containers were segregated and it was only in pursuance of that segregation that the modified licence was granted to the petitioners.2. In these two petitions, the questions which have been raised by the learned Adv...
Mahijibhai Lakhabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR159
M.K. Shah, J.1. The original accused in criminal case No. 3348 of 1979 decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda on 28th November, 1979, has preferred this criminal revision application against the order passed in criminal appeal No. 75 of 1979, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda, on 28th February, 1980, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused against the order of the learned Magistrate convicting him for the offence under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act ('the Act') and sentencing him to R.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, further R.I. for 15 days.2. The accused was apprehended from a road and brought to Sayajiganj police station on 18th September, 1978 at 10. 15 p. m. on a suspicion that he had consumed liquor. A complaint was lodged. He was sent to the S.S.G. Hospital, Baroda for clinical examination. He was examined by the Casualty Medical Officer Mr. Patel, and in his opinion, the accused had consumed liqu...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bhiya HuseIn Koreja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR34
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The respondent herein, Bhiya Husein Koreja, of Nani Chirai, was tried in summary case No. 672/78, by the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anjar, under the charge that on 10-8-78, he had driven a truck bearing No. GTY 3725 in a rash and negligent manner on account of which he caused the death of one Vijay Amratlal and was consequently charged for having committed the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 116 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him, in consequence of which the trial had commenced. Thereafter, the prosecution had examined witness Madhusudan Jayantilal (P.W.I), who supported the Prosecution case.2. Madhusudan Jayantilal was studying in the 8th standard. He deposed that on 10-8-1978, he was returning from the school in the evening and at that time he was accompanied by his co-student deceased Vijay Amratlal. The witness wa...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. N.P. Sumra and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR140
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order recorded by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1920 of 1974. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under:2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 14 were originally appointed as clerks in the Posts and Telegraphs Department of the Government of India. They were confirmed as time-scale clerks. Their appointments were made under the Telegraphists (Recruitment and Training) Rules, 1965. Thereafter they expressed their intention to undergo training as Telegraphists. The Department selected them for training them as Telegraphists. After they received the training, they were appointed to officiate as Telegraphists. They have not been confirmed. Respondents Nos. 1 to 9 were appointed to officiate as Telegraphists on 15th March 1967. Respondents Nos. 10 to 12 were appointed to officiate as Telegraphists in 1969 and respondents Nos. 13 and 14 were appointed to officiate as Telegraphists in 1970. On 9th July 1974 they made a...
Krishnalal Maganlal Vyas Vs. Ganeshbharthi Jasvant Bharthi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR500
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner in this revision application is the Food Inspector, Sidhpur Municipality in Sidhpur town of Mehsana District. The first respondent is original accused No. 1 and the second respondent is the original accused No. 2 in the case instituted on a complaint filed by the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sidhpur, and the third respondent is the State of Gujarat. This criminal revision application has been filed by she petitioner against the order by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, directed the Petitioner to pay compensation to accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 50/- to each of the two accused. This order was passed under Section 250 Sub-section (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973.2. The facts leading to this criminal revision application are that in his capacity as Food Inspector the petitioner took sample of milk on March 23, 1976 at about 8-30 a.m. on a public road in Sidhpur town. The pe...
Trustees of Bai Smarth JaIn Shvetambar Murtipujak Gyanoddhaya Trust an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj107
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. The petitioners are the owners of city Survey Nos. 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1567-Part and 1574-Part situate in Kalupur Ward in the city of Ahmedabad. Some of these survey numbers bad superstructures standing on them. On 30th May, 1957, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of these lands. The public purpose which was stated in the notification was that they were required for a municipal play-ground. On 13th March 1958, notification under Section 6 was issued. Land Acquisition Officer made award of compensation on 30th June, 1960. Thereafter there was a reference to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under Section 18 of the Act. The City Civil Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The award made by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad was challenged by the State Government in this High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and modified the award. On 1...
Smt. Ramaben Santoshkumar Mangatani Vs. Dist. Panchayat Kutch-bhuj and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR71
A.N. Surti, J.The only two points, which I am required to consider in the present second appeal are as follows:(1) Whether the impugned order Ex. 38 dated April 29, 1969 is by way of a penal order removing the appellant from her services or an order of termination simpliciter terminating the services of a temporary servant?(2) Whether the District Health Officer, who in the submission of Mr. Mankad is an officer subordinate to the District Development Officer was competent to pass the impugned order Ex. 38 dated April 29, 1969, particularly when the appointing authority was the District Development Officer?2. The appellant, original plaintiff was aggrieved by the dismissal of her Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1972 by the learned District Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, and which had arisen as a result of the decree of dismissal passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhuj, in Regular Civil Suit No. 31 of 1972.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the im...
Chandrakant Chhotalal Gandhi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR132
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of city Survey Nos. 1559,1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1567-Part and 1574-Part situate in Kalupur Ward in the city of Ahmedabad. Some of these survey numbers had superstructures standing on them. On 30th May 1957, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of these lands. The public purpose which was stated in the notification was that they were required for a municipal play-ground. On 13th March 1958, notification under Section 6 was issued Land Acquisition Officer made award of compensation on 30th June 1960. Thereafter there was a reference to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under sec, 18 of the Act. The City Civil Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The award made by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad was challenged by the State Government in this High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and modified the award. On 11th Octo...
The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1980
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT712(Guj)
S.H. Shetha, J.1. The Associated Cement Companies Limited, the petitioner before us, has been manufacturing cement at Sevaliaya in Kheda District. It has been running its power house in which it has been generating electric power for captive use only. It is used by them alone exclusively for the purpose of manufacturing cement. The Electric Power House is run with the help of steam to produce which boiler has been installed in the power house itself. It is the case of the petitioner that it is not supplying electricity to any outside person or agency but has been making exclusively captive use thereof. On 30th April 1975, the Central Government issued notification No. 118/75-Central Excise, under which it granted exemption from payment of excise duty to goods falling under Item 68 of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, if they were produced by the manufacturer in his own factory only for the purpose of captive use. That notification came into force on 30th Apr...
Soni Bhailal Damji Vs. Hiralal Lakhamshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj120; (1981)GLR473
1. The heirs of the original-defendant of Regular Civil Suit No. 201 of 1970 on the file of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhuj have filed this second appeal challenging the Preliminary decree for redemption of suit mortgage as passed against the original-defendant by the Trial Court and as confirmed by the learned District Judge in appeal. The respondent is the original plaintiff. 2. In order to appreciate the main controversy between the parties in the present proceedings, it is necessary to have a glance at certain relevant facts leading to the present litigation. The suit shop around which the dispute centres is situated near 'Minara Masjid' in Bhuj town of Bhuj district. The original owners of this shop were two brothers named Memon Suleman Haji Ayub and Haji Abdul Sakur Ayub. The mortgage of the said shop with possession was effected in favour of one Soni Bhailal Damji who was the original-defendant in the Trial Court. The present appellants 2 to 8 are the childr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »