Gujarat Court December 1981 Judgments
Aminakhatun and ors. Vs. Fakrusha Bismillahshah Fakir and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Guj68; (1982)1GLR728
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original claimants of Motor Accident Claim Application No. 10 of 1975, decided by the Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The claimants are the widow, four minor children and mother aged 77 of the deceased. They had put forth the claim at Rs. 5 lacs. The Tribunal however, held that the deceased was liable for the mishap to the extent of 30% and ultimately awarded Rs. 63,000/- as 70% of the total amount of compensation worked out by the Tribunal. This amount was then apportioned as detailed in para 55 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the part rejection of their claim the claimants have preferred this appeal. They have restricted their claim in appeal to Rs. 1,37,000/- only. It means that the initial claim of Rs. 5 lacs came to be reduced to Rs. 2 lacs.2. A few facts require to be stated in order to understand the happening of unfortunate accident that accounted for ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Shah Bhagwanji Manekchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC147(Guj)
Desai, J. 1. The assessee is a registered dealer dealing in materials used in the building constriction industry. Amongst the items in which the assessee deals is lime. Different varieties of lime are purchased and sold by the assessee for diverse uses in the building construction activity. During the accounting period corresponding to S.Y. 2029, the assessee purchased and sold lime described as merta lime, sojat lime and gotan lime. In the course of proceedings for assessment to sales tax for the said accounting period, the assessee's contention was that the lime of all the three varieties was covered by entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Sales Tax Officer held that whereas sojat lime and gotan lime were covered by entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A, merta lime was not comprehended within the said entry and that the said variety of lime was liable to be subjected to sales tax under the residuary entry 13 of Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Khimji Bhimji Majithia Vs. Taraben Lalji Soni
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Guj18; (1982)2GLR114
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, ordinarily to be dealt with by a single Judge as per the High Court Appellate Side Rules is before us as the Division Bench, because the learned single Judge, A. N. Surti, J., felt that the question that was raised before him was of frequent occurrence and of vital importance. That question that was referred to us was whether a notice given by the landlord precedent to the filing of the suit for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent must or must not contain a specific demand of the arrears of rent.2. When the matter was called out before us, Mr. Adhyaru, the learned counsel appearing with Mr. Lathipara, the advocate on record, raised a preliminary contention that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maganlal Chhotabhai Desai v. Chandrakant Motilal, AIR 1969 SC 37, this question could not be raised for the first time before the High Court and Mr. Adhyaru urged that we ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Bhikhubhai and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC243(Guj)
Desai, J. 1. The assessee is a dealer registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee, in the course of its business, purchase coal as well as semi-burnt or half-burnt coal commonly known as kolshi. In the present case, we are not concerned with that part of the assessee's business activity which is concerned with the purchase and sale of coal and we need not, therefore, dilate on that aspect. So far as kolshi's constituents are concerned, the Tribunal has described the said article in the course of its order as 'nothing but a part of unburnt coal along with the ash of the remaining part of burnt coal'. After purchasing kolshi, the assessee subjects the same to the process of sieving and the unburnt portion of the coal is thereby separated from the ash. The assessee then sells both the articles separately. 2. During the year 1973-74, which is the relevant year of account, the assessee had purchased kolshi from the registered dealers...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC339(Guj)
Desai, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disputed items are of 'machinery' in the case of a chemical plant which is a new industry and thus allowing set-off thereon under rule 42-A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 ?' 2. The question requires to be answered against the background of facts, as found by the Tribunal, which are set out hereunder. 3. The assessee is a dealer registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee carries on the business of manufacturing and selling chemicals and is a 'certified manufacturer' who has established a 'new industry' within the meaning of entry 53(1) of the Government notification dated 11th November, 1970, issued in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) o...
Tag this Judgment!Mansatta Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC194(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question to us for our opinion under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that copper 'strips' sold by the applicant in the present case were not covered by entry 27 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as under : The assessee-company is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is also holding registration certificate as a dealer under the Gujarat Act. The assessee-company carries on business to manufacture and sell copper-wires, copper strips, etc., at Rajkot. In the course of the assessment period commencing from 1st January, 1973, to 31st December, 1973, the assessee-company had sold copper strips worth Rs. 4,52,573. A ques...
Tag this Judgment!Kiritkumar D. Vyas Vs. State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2GLR79
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. Summary dismissal of a petition challenging the legality and validity of an order of dismissal from service of a class IV employee serving as a Nayak in the office of the Inspector General of Prisons, after 15 years of service had led to this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellant was appointed as a Nayak in the office of the Inspector General of Prisons in the month of March 1961. On 12-5-1975, he was arrested in connection which a prohibition offence, which ended in his conviction on 23-12-1975. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- i d. S.I. for 20 days. The Inspector General of Prisons by an order dated 25-2-1976 dismissed the appellant from service without holding any inquiry relying solely upon his conviction by the Magistrate's Court and without even affording any opportunity to the appellant to have his say even regarding the quantum of punishment. No show cause ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarlal Pranjivandas and anr. Vs. Labhshankar Hargovind Das Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj152; (1982)1GLR433
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This appeal has been referred to this Division Bench because the learned single Judge V. V.Bedarkar, J., by his order dated 12th April. 1981, thought that two important questions of law arose in this second appeal brought here by the original defendants of the Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 1976, decreed against them by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Umrala, whose judgment had come to be confirmed by the District Judge Bhavnagar, in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1979, preferred by these very appellants.2. The appellants are the original defendants against whom a suit for possession of the rented shop was initiated by the respondent-landlord. The shop is situated at village Dholavishi in Umrala Taluka of Bhavnagar District. The plaintiff had purchased the said property on August 2, 1976, from its earlier owner and after terminating the tenancy, he had filed the suit on 7th Oct., 1976 for taking possession. The defendants had, inter alia contended that the...
Tag this Judgment!Anantray Lalji Pandya Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1883; (1982)1GLR689
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The appellant, Anantray Lalji Pandya, was the accused in Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 1979 in the Court of the learned Special Judge. Rajkot District, Rajkot. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was also charged under Section 456 of the Penal Code. XX XX XX XX2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:The accused was serving as a Revenue Circle Inspector in the Office of Mamlatdar at Jetpur at the relevant time (December 1978, Jan. 1979) and his duties as a Circle Inspector, inter alia, were to prepare a Rojkam alias a Panchnama of the property for the purpose of issuing solvency certificate.Complainant, Shri Vrajlal Nathabhai Ranpuria, is a Diploma-holder in Mechanical Engineering and was doing Ms business in electrical goods at Virpur and the complainant was also keeping electrical contracts of Gujarat Electricity Board. In...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Kacharabhai Joitaram (by Lrs.) and ors. Vs. Patel Keshavial Dung ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj230; (1982)1GLR535
1. This appeal from order arises from the judgment and order dated 17?11?1980 and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1977 of the Court of joint District Judge. Mehsana, whereby the learned Judge had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 1971.2. The facts, in short, are that the plaintiff ?present opponent filed a suit to obtain perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing his possession of the suit Vada land and also to recover the land encroached by the defendants together with the costs of the suit. The plaintiff has averred that in Ladol village of Vijapur Taluka. he possesses 'Vadal land facing towards north to South towards western side__________________________________________________________________________________*Against decision of V. T. Parikh Joint Dist. Judge Mehsana. in Regular Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1977.________________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »