Gujarat Court June 1982 Judgments
Hind Mazdoor Sabha Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR788
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. Slavery has been outlawed in all civilized countries and the Constitution of India does not countenance it. And yet it appears that the plight of unemployed workers seeking an honourable means of livelihood is made miserable by unscrupulous contractors who exploit the helpless workers. It virtually amounts to compelling them to work as slaves. This fact was brought to light by a vigilant Union, namely. Hind Mazdoor Sabha acting through its alert General Secretary Shri P. Chidambaram by instituting the present petition. Having regard to the averments regarding serious exploitation of the workers at the hands of the unscrupulous contractors and having regard to the allegations made in the petition that officers of the Labour Department were not taking necessary steps to prevent the exploitation of the workers, we issued an interim order on 7th April 1982 in the following terms:By way of interim relief we direct as under:Mr. A.C. Israni is appointed as Commissioner an...
Tag this Judgment!Zandala Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and ors. Vs. B. Narsinhaman and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj54; (1983)1GLR475
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J. 1. In this petition, two co-operative societies through their respective Chairman have challenged the general elections to agricultural produce market committee, Varahi, dist. B'kantha from agriculturists' constituency as contemplated by Section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural produce Markets Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts leading to the present petition. The petitioners claim to be Seva Sahkari Mandalis falling under the category of co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the Varahi market area in Santalpur taluka of Banaskantha district. The petitioners are duly registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Respondent No. 4 herein is agricultural produce market committee duly registered under the said Act. it is a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Janta Pauva Factory and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj64; (1983)1GLR378
S.L. Talati, J.These five appeals arise out of five different suits filed in court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari and the common questions of facts and law arise in these matters and, therefore, these five appeals are being decided by a common judgment.1 to 3. xxxxx 4. The Government of India had passed an Act No. 10 of 1955 known as 'The Essential Commodities Act, 1955'. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of that Act the Government of Gujarat had passed an order called. 'The Gujarat Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966 by an order dated 5th October. 1966. In the said order in clause 3, after sub-clause (1), the following Sub-clause was inserted, namely (1A):--'(1A) Subject to the provision of clause 4, every person who obtains any quantity of paddy for preparation of Mamra or Poha shall, before he prepares Mamra or Poha, set apart the quantity of rice obtained by him after milling or getting milled 75% of the stock of paddy so obtained and shall sell the quantity of rice...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsnaben Narottamdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Guj)156; [1983]142ITR91(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, the corresponding Samvat Years being 2022 to 2024. The facts leading to this reference, briefly stated, are as under. 2. Shri Narottamdas Chandulal, since deceased, the husband of the assessee was a partner in the firm of M/s. Narottamdas Chandulal and Bros. formed under the partnership deed dated 5th January, 1968. Clause 11 of the said partnership deed provided that on the death of the said Narottamdas, his son and failing him his wife and failing her his daughters will succeed him to the extent of his share in the partnership-firm. Narottamdas expired on 30th September, 1963, leaving behind him his wife (the assessee) and four daughters. On the basis of the aforesaid cl 11, the assessee was admitted as a partner in place of the said Narottamdas and a fresh partnership deed was executed on 23rd December, 1963, which was made effective from 1st October, 1963. Under the said partnership deed, the assessee s...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Sukhdevbhai Katara Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR680; (1983)IILLJ223Guj
1. The petitioner is a Police Constable working in the Control Room of the Office of the Commissioner of Police at Ahmedabad. By this application he moves this Court for appropriate writs, orders and directions to enjoin the Commissioner of Police to permit him to resume his duties. The circumstances under which the petitioner has been constrained to move this Court are as under. 2. The petitioner was required to proceed on sick leave with effect from 3rd October, 1975 as he was suffering from tuberculosis. He submitted medical certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad in support of his application for leave from 8th October, 1975 to 24th June, 1977 and the salary for the period was paid to him in 1978. The petitioner was required to be treated for his ailment and since he was not paid salary, he was required to go to his home town and take proper treatment and rest. After he recovered and recouped, in order to resume his duties, he was required to produce the fitness certificate und...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. Pathak Vs. V.B. Barot and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Guj317; (1982)2GLR633
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raises a short but an interesting question of law as to the power of the Sub-Registrar acting under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Registration Act') to refuse to accept for registration a document which, according to the Sub-Registrar, is governed by the provisions of Ss. 26 and 28 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Ceiling Act).2. A few relevant facts may be noted at this stage. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not holding any land more than the ceiling area and he decided to sell his land admeasuring 568.8 sq. yds. located at Raijot to one Kusumben Amratlal Bhatt and executed the sale deed on 27-7-1981 in her favour for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. The said document was presented by the petitioner in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Rajkot, respondent No. 2 who is charged with statutory dut...
Tag this Judgment!G.H. Sheth Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR467
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The Petitioner, who at all the relevant times of this petition, was working as an Administrative Officer, Class II, in Directorate of Medical Services (ESI) at the ESI Hospital, Baroda, has, by this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, prayed for appropriate writs, orders and direction enjoining respondent No. 1 to consider him for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, Class II (Senior Scale) in the Directorate of Health Services (Medical) and restraining the said respondent from according promotion to the said post to his junior, inter alia, on the ground that according to the Government resolutions in that behalf made from time to time, the State Government was under an obligation to accord promotion on the basis of the common seniority list of Administrative Officers working in different directorates.2. The brief narration of the facts which compelled the petitioner to move this Court is as under. In the Department of Health and Family Welfa...
Tag this Judgment!New Shorock Mills Division of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Somabhai Ma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj21; (1983)1GLR172
ORDERR.C. Mankad, J. 1. Can the petitioner, who by invoking ordinary civil jurisdiction of the Court had sought possession of the premises in occupation of the respondent alleging that the respondent was a mere licensee whose licence was terminated, ask the Court to decree his claim for possession in exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the basis that relationship between it (petitioner) and the respondent was that of landlord and tenant governed by the provisions of the Act? 1 am called upon to answer this question in this revision application in the background of the following facts.2. Petitioner is a public limited Company. The respondent was in its employment and it is alleged that the respondent was given premises in one of the properties owned by the petitioner for his use and occupation at a licensee on account of big employment with the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas729(Guj); (1983)1GLR445
Mehta, J. 1. These three company applications arise out of the proceedings taking over the Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Mfg. Co. Ltd. (In winding-up) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). By two company applications, namely, Company Application Nos. 28 of 1981 and 82 of 1982, the Union of India and by company Application No. 101 of 1982 the shareholder and the creditors of the company the petitioners herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the sponsors of the scheme') have taken out summons for directions. The Union of India has sought a direction that permission under s. 18FA(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to take over the textile unit of the company be granted for the purposes of handing over the said unit to the Gujarat State and for appointment of the Gujarat State Textile Corporation as authorised persons. The sponsors of the scheme have by Company Petition No. 36 of 1980 sought the sanction of the court under s. 3...
Tag this Judgment!N.L. Ramani Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co. Op. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR1
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. Sympathy for one should not result in cruelty to others. Not at any rate (1) when the question of interpretation of a legal doctrine arises in a labour dispute and (2) when in order to immunize the industrial employer from the economic injury (which is an occupational hazard for him and which he can normally absorb without tears or sobs or being economically crippled) arising from delays in Courts and Tribunals, economic injury has to be inflicted on the workers (who are bound to be economically crippled thereby). This proposition can scarcely be disputed as late as today when Twentieth Century is just about to close its jaws. It cannot be disputed at least in India where socialistic goals are proclaimed with rightful pride in the Preamble and woven in the texture of the Constitution without feeling shy or coy about the same. The very credibility of that proposition is at stake In the present matter as will become evident very soon.2. A question of considerable imp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›