Gujarat Court October 1982 Judgments
The Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, Ahmedabad Vs. Gordhanbh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj185; (1983)1GLR607
S.L. Talati, J.1. These First Appeals are directed against a common judgment rendered by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge at Nadiad on 6-2-1975 while deciding compensation Reference Cases Nos. 44 of 1973 to 51 of 1973.2. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation for establishment of an industrial estate required certain lands in village Karamsad of Anand Taluka, Notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act was published on 1-5-1969. Thereafter compensation was claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer by the claimants and the claim was at the rate of Rs. 500/- per guntha. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rupees 1.10 per sq. metre for all the lands except survey Nos. 505 and 506. For these two survey numbers the Land Acquisition Officer awarded at the rate of Rs. 1.30 per sq. mt. The claimants were not satisfied with the awards passed and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to make, reference and under those circumstances the land acquisition reference cases were made...
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1982
Reported in: 1983LC1D(Gujarat)
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. 'Heads' the petitioners, manufacturers of textile goods at Ahmedabad (who have recovered the excise duty from the consumers) win (and make a windfall profit, the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' not withstanding), 'Tails' the consumers, who have already suffered the burden of the levy, lose. Such are the implications of the problem posed in this group of petitions raising a question which one might be tempted to call 'a million dollar question' but for the fact that it would be gross under-statement. For, the question, if answered the way desired by the petitioners, can cost the Revenue hundreds of millions of rupees (recovered over last several years by way of duty which will have to be refunded to the manufacturers all over India).The Problem:2. For more than 38 years, ever since the enactment of Excise Act in 1944, manufacturers of goods all over India have been paying excise duty at the prescribed rates. Wherever duty is payable ad valorem, it is being paid unde...
Tag this Judgment!Himat Popatlal Raval Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR268
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Admit. Mr. J.U. Mehta, P.P., waives service on behalf of the State. Mr. A.H. Mehta, the learned advocate for the appellant-accused, has confined his arguments only with regard to sentence and has not raised any contention against the conviction.2. The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1982 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years on each count and the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused on each count is ordered to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, declined to take a lenient view of the matter probably on the ground that the virginity of the prosecutrix has been affected permanently and her reputation has been tarnished for the whole life. This is bound to happen in any rape case. The circumstances of the case clearly show that both, the accused as well as the prosecutrix, are of immature age and t...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Prtg. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC63; 1982(10)ELT821(Guj); (1983)1GLR1
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. 'Heads', the petitioners, manufacturers of textile goods at Ahmedabad (who have recovered the excise duty from the consumers) win - (and make a windfall profit the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' notwithstanding), 'Tails', the consumers, who have already suffered the burden of the levy, loss. Such are the implications of the problem posed in this group of petitions raising a question which one might be tempted to call as million dollar question but for the fact that it would be a gross understatement. For, the question, if answered the way desired by the petitioners, can cost the Revenue hundreds of millions of rupees (recovered over last several years by way of duty which will have to be refunded to the manufacturers all over India). The Problem 2. For more than 30 years, ever since the enactment of Excise Act in 1944, manufacturers of goods all over India have been paying excise duty at the prescribed rates. Wherever duty is payable ad valorem, it is being paid u...
Tag this Judgment!Sushilabehn and ors. Vs. Anandilal Bapalal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj126; (1983)1GLR278
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Original defendants 2 to 6 of Civil suit No. 3646 of 1973, on the file of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned City Civil Judge holding that the release deed dated February 11, 1972 executed by original defendant 7 in their favour amounted to fraudulent transfer within the terms of Section 53, T. P. Act inasmuch as it was executed with the ulterior motive to defeat and delay the creditors plaintiffs 1 to 5 whose suits were pending at the relevant time of the execution of the said deed, and in which ultimately decrees were made in their favour against him, have filed First Appeal No. 50/79 and original defendant 1 has filed First Appeal No. 587/79.2. It is not necessary to set out elaborately the minutest facts leading to these appeals. Suffice it to state a few facts in order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants in these appeals it should be stated that First Appeal 587/79 is an appeal preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Yusufbhai Mahamud Hafezi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR433
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner has been detained by the second respondent (District Magistrate, Surat) in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') upon being satisfied that the detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. The order of detention, Annexure 'A', is dated September 10 1982. The petitioner was taken under detention on the same day. The grounds of detention, Annexure 'C dated September 10, 1982, were served upon the petitioner when he was taken under detention. The petitioner made a representation on September 17, 1982 to the first respondent (State of Gujarat) against his detention. The representation was considered by the first respondent and it was rejected on September 21, 1982, and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Dahyalal Shah and ors. Vs. Lalchand Motichandbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1231
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioners in this application were the original accused against whom a complaint was filed by the opponent No. 1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First-Class, Dhandhuka. In the said complaint it was alleged that the accused had committed certain acts which were punishable under Sections 341, 114 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. After reading the complaint the learned Magistrate thought it fit to issue process against the accused persons for offences under Sections 341 & 114 I. P. C. only. For the reason which is not disclosed, the learned Magistrate did not issue process for the offence under Section 452 I. P. C. The process was ordered to be issued on May 19, 1981 and the Notice was made returnable on June 11, 1981. After that, what happened in the Court is not brought on the record of this case. However, the learned Magistrate passed an order on November 18, 1981 staling that the complainant was not present in the Court and the complaint was dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Hind Printing Press Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC135(Guj)
Desai, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was estopped from contending that it was not a 'dealer' in respect of the sales of printing machinery worth Rs. 77,591 on account of the fact that it was registered as a dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and/or on account of the applicant having purchased the disputed machinery by furnishing declarations in form C, in terms of section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was a 'dealer' within the meaning of section 2(10) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, in respect of the aforesaid sales of machinery (3)...
Tag this Judgment!Madhinabhai Nimatbhai and ors. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1982
Reported in: II(1984)ACC97; (1983)1GLR243
S.L. Talati, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment rendered by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Broach in Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 1974 and Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 1974 on 30.10.1975. The facts which gave rise to these two appeals may be stated as under:On 24.10.1973 on the foot-track between village Rundha and Kabirgaon two young boys Chandrasinh and Dalsukhbhai expired because while passing on that foot track they came in contact with an electric live wire. The parents of Chandrasinh filed Special Civil Suit No. 55 of 1974 against the respondent-Gujarat Electricity Board and claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The widow of Dalsukhbhai and minor children of Dalsukhbhai and the parents of Dalsukhbhai filed Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 1974 and they claimed a sum of Rs. 67,340/-. Both the suits were heard together and the evidence was recorded in Special Suit No. 55 of 1974 and ultimately the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Broach dismissed both the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jiviben Chana and ors. Vs. Shah Karsan Lakha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR134
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. The appellants-applicants, who are the heirs of the deceased Chana Hira had filed Workmen's Compensation Case No. 21 of 1977 in the Court of the Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kutch at Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) against one Shah Karsan Lakha, for compensation of Rs. 19,200/- for the death of Chana Hira. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:Deceased Chana Hira Jesar was employed by the opponent who had gone with the opponent's party in Truck No. GTY-2825, on 22-5-1977 from Bhachau to Kheroi village. The opponent was present at the time of the incident nearby the truck where the deceased was discharging his duties. At that time all of sudden a serpent came out and bit the deceased at the left foot. It is the cause of the appellants that the opponent, though he was personally present there, did not take care for speedy action for medical treatment. They stated that the opponent did not take the deceased immed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »