Gujarat Court July 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.
Mohanlal Narayandas Patel Vs. the Rustom Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR530
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A workman who had admittedly worked overtime approached the Labour Court at Ahmedabad by way of a recovery application upon the employer refusing to grant him overtime allowance as per the relevant rules on two grounds: (1) that though he had actually worked, there was no express order directing him to work overtime, and (2) he could have completed the work during his regular office hours and need not have worked overtime. The Labour Court by the impugned order at Annexure 'B' dated January 25, 1978 upheld the contention of the employer and dismissed the recovery application made by the workman concerned. Thereupon the said workman has approached this Court by way of the present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it manifests errors apparent on the face of record.2. The facts are not in dispute. The workman concerned had worked overtime from May 1971 till November 1972 as per particu...
Dr. S.C. Kaushik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR997
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Replacing an officer who has 'not' been selected by another who 'has' been selected by the Selection Committee is understandable and accords with principle and policy. But to replace an official who has acquired 5 years' experience but has not been successful at the selection, by a fresh recruit, who has not yet been selected so far, smacks of irrationality, arbitrariness and caprice which are frowned upon by Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Such is the proposition canvassed by two Assistant Medical Officers employed by the Railway Administration who have instituted these two allied petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising identical questions on similar facts.2. The facts which are not in dispute in both the petitions are as under:The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1871/77 is a medical graduate holding a Degree of M.B.B.S. He was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer, Class II, on June 22, 1972 as per order at An...
Bhudarbhai Hirabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR434
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner is serving as a class II officer in the Gujarat Agricultural Service class II. He is an employee of respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat and he challenges the action of the 1st respondent State in not offering him option to switch over to the service of Gujarat Agricultural University established by Gujarat Act No. 13 of 1960. He also alternatively contends that if the relevant provision of the said Act does not permit him to be given such option then in that eventuality the said provision is ultra vires fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid premises a writ of mandamus is sought from this Court for directing the respondents who are the State of Gujarat and the Gujarat Agricultural University respectively to give the petitioner an option to opt for service in the Gujarat Agricultural University. He has also sought for a declaration that Section 52 of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 196...
A. Raman and Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT592(Guj)
A.N. Surti, J.1. The petitioners M/s. A. Raman and Company, Cotton Mills, situated near S.T. Workshop, Naroda road, Ahmedabad, were aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, and the Government of India, annexures 'C', 'D' and 'E' respectively annexed to the main petition and have filed the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. A few relevant facts giving rise to the present petitions may be stated in brief. The petitioners are a partnership firm running a yarn manufacturing unit at Naroda in the city of Ahmedabad. In the year 1971, the petitioners had manufactured yarn of mixed fibres containing woollen yarn of staple waste and wool waste. The petitioners had also submitted returns for payment of excise duty leviable on the said products. 3. The Central Excise department raised a question with respect to the classification of the said product manufacture...
M.B. Risaldar Vs. Radheshyam Ramdhar Agarwal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR136
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. ... ... ... ...2. The prosecution case is that on 15th February, 1971 at the restaurant of the accused which is known as Agrawal Restaurant, food inspector Manubhai A. Pandya purchased Jalebi prepared in oil. It is the prosecution case that the oil used in Jalebi was not according to the prescribed standard and, therefore, the accused was prosecuted.3. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on two counts. One count was that the prosecution failed to prove that the public analyst was sent sufficient quantity of Jalebi to extract sufficient quantity of oil as per Rule 22 which says that 125 Gms. of edible oil shall be sent to the public analyst. This, the learned Magistrate held on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajal Das Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra : 1975CriLJ254 , wherein it was held that the accused cannot be convicted unless sufficient quantity for analysis as laid down under Rule 22 is analysed. The second count was that there was...
Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-1980
Reported in: (1981)19CTR(Guj)111; [1981]127ITR37(Guj)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDIVAN C.J. - In this case the Tribunal has referred two questions to us, one at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the revenue. The facts leading to this reference are as follows :The assessee is a public limited company and follows the mercantile system of accounting. The assessment year under consideration is 1964-65, the relevant previous accounting year being the financial year 1963-64. The assessee manufactures safety glasses, wired glasses and figured glasses. The assessee started construction of its factory at Anand in Kaira District in the accounting year 1961-62 and imported machinery from West Germany for the erection of this factory. The erection and installation of machineries were mainly entrusted to German technicians who had been directly delegated by the West German suppliers of the machinery. The plant was commissioned and put into service from October 9, 1963. The assessee company incurred various ex...
Ramanlal Zinabhai Joshi Vs. Navsari Nagarpalika
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR524
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Two question arise in this petition by an employee of a Nagarpalika who was dismissed from service pursuant to an order which was held to be null and void by a competent Court namely:(1) Whether the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by way of a Recovery Application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is lost in case the employee concerned has failed to claim the relief for wages in the suit in which the impugned order of dismissal was held to be void?(2) Whether a Nagarpalika which is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India should raise such an immoral and unethical plea of a technical nature in disregard of the demands of justice?2. So far as the first question is concerned, the Labour Court at Surat has rejected the recovery application made by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the impugned order at Annexure 'A' dated 4-3-78 mainly on the ground that t...
M.G. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR232; (1981)IILLJ64Guj
Thakkar, J. 1. The petitioner, an employee of the State of Gujarat holding the post of Helio Printer at Government Photo Litho Press, Ahemadabad, has instituted the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of his grievance that the State Government has acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in regard to the fixation of the pay-scales of the cadre of Helio Printers in the wake of the recommendations made by the Gujarat State Second Pay Commission as per the report submitted in 1975. 2. The corresponding pay-scales of the cadres of Helio Printer, Camera Operator, Vandyke Operator and Technical Assistant since 1960 have been as under : Helio Camera Vandyke TechnicalPrinter Operator Operator Assistant(H.P.) (C.O.) (V.O.) (T.A.)Pay-scales in 115-130 100-130 85-135 85-135operation from1961 to 1967 tillthe recommendationsof First PayCommission(Sarela Commission)became operative in1967.Pay-scales as per 125-200 125-200 125-200 125-200Sarela Commissio...
Dineshbhai A. Parikh Vs. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society, Nagarve ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Guj194; (1981)0GLR165
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society Limited is respondent No. 1 to the petition. It is hereinafter referred to as 'the society' for the sake of brevity. The petitioner was admitted to the membership of the society in July 1973. The society then had been constructing residential flats. In 1977, the construction had been in progress. During that very year, the society passed a resolution expelling the petitioner from its membership. The petitioner challenged that resolution before the Board of Nominees constituted under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. On 26th May 1978, the Board of Nominees issued an ad-interim injunction-restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 10 the other members of the society from taking possession of the flats under construction and restraining the society from handing over possession of these flats to respondents Nos. 2 to 10. The Board of Nominees also stayed the implementation of the resolution which was challenged before it.2. On 27th May 197...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›