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.
Golden Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS427D; 1980(6)ELT311(Guj); (1981)0GLR440
ORDERS.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian companies Act and has been engaged in the manufacture of the cigarettes. Amongst other places it has got a factory at Baroda. On the manufacture of cigarettes. the petitioner-company was called upon to pay excise duty. While determining the assessable value of cigarettes for the purpose of collecting excise duty, the central excise duty, the central excise authorities included in it certain post- manufacturing expenses, such as advertisement expenses, storage expenses, marketing and distribution expenses and Bank charges and interest recovered by the petitioner-company from wholesale buyers who enjoy a certain credit. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise determined the assessable value after including therein expenses under all these heads. The petitioner appealed against the order to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise who confirmed it. 2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, thee petitioner has t...
Soni Keshavlal Kalidas Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR48
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant challenges in this second appeal partial rejection of his suit by the learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh at Porbandar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1974 filed by respondent Electricity Board before the District Court.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to glance through certain relevant facts leading to this litigation between the respondent-Electricity Board and the appellant-plaintiff, who is the consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent-Electricity Board. His consumer number is 3744. The plaintiff is holding connection of 80 H.P. for industrial purposes and he runs an oil mill in the name and style of Chhabil Oil Mill at Veraval in Junagadh District. According to the plaintiff, he is taking advantage of seasonal rates as per the provisions of the tariff prescribed by the respondent-Board every year and for that purpose an application is required to be made to the defendant before the ...
Darshan Hosiery Works Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1980
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT390(Guj); (1981)0GLR533
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners in all these cases are engaged in the business of manufacturing under garments and body-supporting garments like 'Banians' (upper-underwear) and 'Jangias' (lower-underwears). They have been required by the Central excise authorities to take out licence for manufacturing 'Banians' and 'Jangias'. They are challenging in this group of petitions the notices issued by the central excise authorities to them to take out the licence. The petitioners in all these petitions, therefore, contend that 'Banians' and 'Jangias' are not excisable articles at all and that, therefore, there is no obligation on them to take out the licence. 2. Before we examine the contention raised by Mr. Bhatt on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection which Mr. Vakil has raised to the maintainability of these petitions. According to him, these petitions are not maintainable because the petitioners have been merely directed to take out licence un...
F.M. Kolia and anr. Vs. Manager, the Tiles and Pottery Works Ltd. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR528
S.L. Talati, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the General Secretary of Vapi General Kamdar Mandal at Bilimora. Petitioner No. 2 is a woman worker working in the factory of which respondent No. 1 is the Manager.2. Petitioner No. 2 applied for her maternity leave pay under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Senior Factory Inspector replied that she was not entitled to maternity leave pay inasmuch as she had attended only for 143 days and, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 she was not entitled to maternity leave pay. Under these circumstances this petition is filed for obtaining the directions to get the maternity leave pay.3. It may be stated that certain facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 2 is a woman worker working in a Company known as 'The Tiles and Pottery Works Ltd., Bilimora'. She is working there for the last eight or ten years as stated by the General Secretary who argued the matter persona...
Cibatul Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)1GLR825
S.L. Talati, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 - Cibatul Ltd. - is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is working as the managing director of petitioner No. 1. Petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the shareholders of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the professional managing director. He after having passed and obtained M.Sc. degree in Organic Chemistry obtained Doctor's degree in Switzerland in the year 1949. Thereafter in the 1950, he joined service and started his career with petitioner No. 3. Thereafter, in the year 1960 petitioner No. 1-Company started manufacturing business. Petitioner No. 2 thereafter in the year 1967 joined petitioner No. 1-company and became its managing director for the first time. He was appointed for a period of five years. Again he was appointed in the year 1972 as the managing director for a period of five years and he continued to serve petitioner No. 1 in that capacity up to 1977. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1-comp...
Suhrid Geigy Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS558D; (1980)2GLR16
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Suhrid Geigy Limited, the petitioner, has been manufacturing the following two medicinal preparations : 1. Hygroton Reserpine Tablets. 2. Tofranil-Ampules and Tablets. 2. The first mentioned medicinal preparation is issued as an anti-hypertension drug. The second-mentioned medicinal preparation is used as anti-department (sic). According to Mr. Nanavaty, they do not contain a 'narcotic drug' or a 'narcotic' within the meaning of the definition of that expression given at the relevant time in Section 2(h) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. 3. The question which has, therefore, been raised in this petition is whether they contain a 'narcotic drug' or 'narcotic' and liable to be taxed under the Item I(iii) in the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. The only argument which Mr. Patel on behalf of respondent No. 3 has raised before us is that these two medicines contain tranquilisers and that, therefor...
Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR30
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Sarabhai Chemicals Limited, the petitioner, has been manufacturing the following four medicinal preparations:1. SIQUIL (Triflupromazine Hydrochloride).2. ANATENSOL (Fluphenazine Hydrochloride)3. DI-RAUDIXIN (whole root Rauwolfia Serpentina).4. DI-RAUDTXIN FORTE.It is un-disputed that they are all tranquillizers. The question which has been raised for our consideration is whether they are medicinal preparations containing 'narcotic drug' or 'narcotic' within the meaning of Item I (iii) in the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, and are, therefore, liable to payment of excise duty thereunder. Mr. I.M. Nanavaty states to us that in respect of these medicinal preparations, the petitioner has been paying excise duty levied under Section 3 read with Item 14E in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Item 14E provides for levy of excise duty on patent or proprietary medicines not containing 'narcotic drug' or 'na...
Sohal Engineering Works Vs. Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj110; (1981)GLR491
ORDER1. By this application the original defendant challenges the order passed by the learned Judge in the City Civil Court (Seventh Court), Ahmedabad, whereby he instead of staying the subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed that the subsequently instituted suit should be tried and decided along with the previously instituted suit. The facts giving rise to the present revision application in a nutshell are as under.2. The plaintiff, Rustorn Jehangir Vakil Mills Company Limited, placed an order with the defendant for the manufacture of three roll calender machines to be erected and installed at the defendant's cost at its factory on or before 31st March, 1974. The Sales Manager of the defendant-firm accepted the order at Ahmedabad and received a cheque for advance payment from the plaintiff-company. Under the contract the price was fixed at Rs.3,10,000/- less 5 per cent discount. The advance payment was made to the extent of 30 per cent of ...
Umaji Bhuvan Dharmashala Trust and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj223; (1981)0GLR469
Sheth, J.1. These six petitions have been filed by the Trustees of public charities. There are Jain Dharmashalas at Palitana in the District of Bhavnagar. They were called upon the Mamlatdar of Palitana to pay education cess for the, period commencing from 1st August, 1962 to 31st March, 1975. He also demanded from the petitioners penafty for not having paid education cess in time. Those notices of demand and levy of penalty are challenged by the petitioners in these petitions.2. Before we proceed to deal with the merits of the case, it is necessary to state a few facts showing the state of these petitions. In each petition, several public charities have been joined together. The facts relating to each public charity are different. In our opinion, there could not have been a more heterogenous grouping of the petitioners in each of these petitions. If facts relating to each of. the petitioners are different, then it is always necessary for each of the petitioners to file a separate peti...
Jadeja Ajitsinh Natubha and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1203; (1980)GLR571
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A very strange and unprecedented request is made by four convicts who have been found guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of the Sarpanch of village Jakhotra, and with have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They have approached the Court with a prayer for being released on bail on sympathetic grounds (as there is no one to look after their agricultural fields). When the offence which was committed on April 4, 1978 was under investigation, they were in jail as under-trial prisoners for the very good reason that bail is not granted in a murder case when there is a prima facie case against the accused. They were in jail during the trial which culminated in an order of conviction (under Section 302 read with Section 34) and sentence (imprisonment for life) rendered on January 16, 1980. It would indeed be strange if the Court were to enlarge them on bail after a competent Court hold...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »