Gujarat Court September 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.
Nathalal Govindji Jhagada Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR503
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is a detenu who has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas (Maintenance of Public Order) Ordinance, 1980, being Gujarat Ordinance No. 17 of 1980. The detenu has been detained in pursuance of an order dated August 18, 1980. He was actually arrested on August 20, 1980. The ground of detention dated August 18, 1980 were furnished to detenu at the time of his arrest and thereafter this special criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed in this Court challenging this order of detention. The matter came up for admission before the Division Bench consisting of M.P. Thakkar add R.C. Mankad JJ. on August 25, 1980. On that day the Division Bench passed the following order:Interim relief not pressed at present as rule is to be finally heard on 1-9-80. At the request of counsel respondents are directed to keep the petitioner present in Court at 11 A.M. on 1-9-80 to enable counsel to obtain instructio...
B.B. Shroff and Anr. Vs. Sardar Bhilandwala Pardi People's Co. Op. Ban ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR805
P.D. Desai, J.1. Rule to be heard today. Mr. V.C. Desai waives service of the Rule on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. M.I. Hava waives service of the Rule on behalf of the second and third respondents.2. The question herein relates to the validity of an order dated April 23, 1979 made by the second respondent under Section 13(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') registering the amendment of the by-laws of the first respondent cooperative Society, which has been confirmed by the order dated May 29, 1980 passed by the third respondent by dismissal of the appeal preferred against the said order by the petitioner Society.3. Section 13(1) provides that no amendment of the by-laws of a society shall be valid until registered under the Act. For the purpose of registration of an amendment of the by-laws, a copy of the amendment passed in the manner prescribed, at a general meeting of the society, is required to be forwarded to the Reg...
Aryodaya Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT274(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is a limited Company and it manufactures both cellulosic spun yarn as well as cotton yarn and also purchase the same from the market for manufacture of cotton fabrics. The petitioner company is a composite mill in the sense that it spins yarns, weaves cloth and also processes the same in its processing house unit. The cellulosic spun yarn, the cotton yarn and the cotton fabrics which the petitioner manufactures are excisable commodities. Cellulosic spun yarn is liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 18. Cotton yarn is liable to excise duty under Tariff No. 18-A and cotton fabrics are liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 19 in the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Under Sections 6, 12 and 37 of the Act, powers has been conferred upon the Central Government to make rules and one of the powers is to make rules for excepting goods from excise duty in special cases. In the exercise of ...
Rajkot Lodhika Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR376
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Six petitioners who have filed this petition are manufacturers or producers of groundnut oil. It is their case that they receive grondnuts from the growers and they produce oil on their behalf and sell it also on their behalf. After oil is produced, it is stored in bulk in storage tanks and then it is sold under the advice of the owners of groundnuts, who act through their primary societies. Petitioner No. 1 does not charge any commission for effecting the sales. It only collects process charges for the production of oil out of groundnuts supplied to it by the growers.2. At the relevant time, petitioner No. 1 had in stock 804 tonnes of groundnut oil. According to petitioner No. 1, it belonged to the owners who had supplied groundnuts to if. It also had in stock 18 tonnes of refined solvent groundnut oil. Petitioner No. I had also in its storage tanks 666 tonnes of oil belonging to the marketing federation and 150 tonnes of refined solvent oil belonging to that federati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›