Gujarat Court October 1981 Judgments
Siddharth Mohanlal Sharma Vs. South Gujarat University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR233
P.D. Desai, J.1. Questions of some importance in the field of administrative law arise in this appeal in the context of the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction by a University over a student who is alleged to have misconducted himself at an examination. The question of the ambit of the power of the Court exercising writ jurisdiction to examine the validity of the findings of fact upon which the ultimate decision recorded by a disciplinary authority rests has been the subject-matter of a catena of decisions. One of the rules which is well-established is that to find facts on no evidence is to err in law and that such an error attracts judicial review. What is meant however, by 'no evidence'? Does it mean total dearth of evidence or lack of evidence reasonably capable of supporting the findings? This is principal question which directly falls for consideration herein. The subsidiary question is as to when can the quantum of penalty, which is within the exclusive domain of the disciplin...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Bhand Jusub Mamad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1691; (1982)1GLR651
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1980 by which he convicted the accused Bhand Jusab Mamad for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R. I for four years but acquitted him for the original offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. x x x x x3. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, the State has come in appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1369 of 1980 with a grievance that the conviction should have been under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; while the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1981 from jail against the order of his conviction. We, there-fore, propose to decide both these appeals by this judgment because they are directed against one and the same judgment.4.-11. xx xx xx xx12. Therefore, the appeal filed...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Ilac Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC24(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. At the instance of the State of Gujarat, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the whole or any part of the collection Rs. 6,361.31 made by the opponent under the head, 'sales tax paid to the manufacturer' from the opponent's purchasers was not made 'by way of tax' ?' 2. The above question has been referred to us in the following circumstances : The assessee is a registered dealer under the Bombay Act. The business of the assessee-company was reselling textile goods, cotton waste, cotton thread, etc. During the assessment period, commencing from 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, the assessee-company had purchased cotton waste from a manufacturer who was a registered dealer and had resold the same in the State of Gujarat. In the bills o...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Boards and Paper Products Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)322; [1982]137ITR635(Guj)
P. D. DESAI J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for straw-boards and kraft paper ?'The assessment year involved in the reference is the assessment year 1971-72, the previous year being the calendar year 1970. The assessee, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufacture of straw-board and kraft paper. In the course of its assessment to income-tax in the previous assessment years, it claimed and was granted the benefit of deduction under s. 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration, the ITO took the view that the relief under s. 80-I was not admissible because the assessees undertaking which manufactured straw-board was not...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaldas and Co. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC227(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following question to us for our opinion under section 69(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act'), read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') : 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not justified to claim exemption on the sale of Rs. 11,32,257 under section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 ?' 2. The aforesaid question has been referred to us on the facts and in the circumstances stated hereinunder : The assessee, a partnership firm, is a dealer in cotton waste. It was duly registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as well as under the Central Act. During the period of assessment made under the Central Act, commencing from 18th July, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, the assessee had ef...
Tag this Judgment!Bachubhai Mansukhbhai Bhavsar Vs. Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad Cit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ512; (1981)GLR1204
P.D. Desai, J.1. By an order made on July 5, 1981, the first (Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, ordered the detention of the. petitioner, on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. The petitioner was duly detained pursuant to the said order. The grounds of detention of even date were thereafter served upon him together with the relevant documents. The petitioner instituted the present petition on Sept. 19, 1981. The petition reached preliminary hearing on Sept. 21, 1981 when Rule was ordered to issue returnable on Oct. 5, 1981, The petition reached final hearing today and it is being disposed of by this judgment.2. The order of detention has been challenged on the following grounds ;(1) Para l of the g...
Tag this Judgment!Natverlal Jekisandas Vs. Bai Girja D/O. Bhogilal Jamnadas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)2GLR90
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision application brought by one Natverlal whom I call the 'husband' for the sake of convenience, he being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in the criminal revision application no. 82 of 1980, which he was pleased to decide in favour of the opponent Bai Girja, who admittedly is the divorced wife of the husband. The marriage had taken place in the year 1942 and in the year 1955 when the woman was carrying, by mutual agreement or consent a deed of divorce had come to be executed by and between the parties on 7-5-55 because customary law of the parties permitted such divorce. The deed of divorce was read by Mr. N.R. Oza, the learned advocate appearing for the husband and there is no controversy about the factum of divorce, nor is there any dispute about the text of the said writing of divorce. It appears that the parties mutually felt that it was no longer possible for them to pull on together and they, therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Maganbhai Madhabhai Vs. Ambalal Bhikhabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj129; (1982)1GLR746
1. This appeal is from order has been brought to this Court presumably under o 43 of the Civil P. C. by the original defendants Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, being aggrieved by the order of interim injunction granted by the learned Joint District Judge, Nadiad in proceedindgs that had come to be registered with his Court as the Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1980. The interim injunction that was granted by the learned Judge was in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the original plaintiffs, and it reads as follows:'The ex parte ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiffs on 17-6-80 is made absolute till the final disposal of this suit.'2. A few facts require to be noted closely in order to fully comprehend the controversy. There is the famous temple of Laxminarayan Dev at Vadtal in Kheda district. The said temple belongs to the Swaminarayan sect which was founded by Sahajanand Swamy. He had his influence over his various disciples spread over almost all the parts of India and it appears tha...
Tag this Judgment!K. Patel and Co. Vs. Shah Maheshkumar Ratilal, a Firm
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR283
A.N. Surti, J.1. In course of the hearing of Summary Suit No. 1196 of 1977 which was being heard by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, an application was given by the petitioner-original tenant for production of certain documents after the evidence of the plaintiff and one of the defendants was over.2. When such application-Ex. 33 was given, the plaintiff's advocate objected the production of the documents on the ground that no good cause was shown for such a late production of documents and that the plaintiff's evidence was already over, and that thereby the opportunity could not have been made available to the plaintiff to explain away the documents produced in pursuance of Ex. 33.3. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court rejected the application Ex. 33.4. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner-original defendant had a grievance against the impugned order passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, and has filed the present revision applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Mer Malde Karna Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2271; (1981)GLR1201
P.D. Desai, J.1. By an order made on August 26, 1981 by the first respondent (District Magistrate Junagadh) the petitioner was detained Under Sectionub-sec. (2) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention were supplied to the petitioner on August 29, 1981. The State Government approved the order of detention under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, on September 5, 1981. The present petition was instituted on September 14, 1981, Rule was ordered to issue on the petition on September 16, 1981. The petition reached hearing before this Court yesterday and it is being disposed of by this judgment.2. The following grounds were urged in support of the petition on behalf of the petitioner:1. The grounds alleged that the petitioner was involved in several criminal cases and for that purpose reference has bee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›