Gujarat Court August 1982 Judgments
Anil Ice Factory and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: 1991LC337(Gujarat); 1984(15)ELT316(Guj); (1982)2GLR714
Thakkar, C.J.1. Petitioners challenge the order holding that they are liable to pay excise duty on the 'Cooling Coils and Condensers' manufactured on their precincts. It is not disputed that - (1) The goods are manufactured on the precincts of the factory of petitioners; (2) The necessary materials are supplied by petitioners; (3) The work is executed by Messrs Panchal Engineering & Iron Works at the behest of and for benefit of petitioners with the materials supplied by petitioners of payment of stipulated charges. These facts have not been disputed for they are incapable of being disputed in view of the statement made by the partner of Messrs Panchal Engineering & Iron Works March 9, 1972 before the excise authorities (See para 6 of the order passed by the Collector at Annexure 'C'). Counsel for petitioners had relied on a decision of this High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1504 of 1970 before the Collector of Excise but could not do so before us since the decision in that...
Tag this Judgment!Mukundrai Jivram Pandit Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR106
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The present three Special Civil Applications, namely, Special Civil Application No. 1894 of 1981 (District Rajkot), Special Civil Application No. 3174 of 1981 (District Ahmedabad) and Special Civil Application No. 2840 of 1981 (District Surat) raise a common legal issue before me and therefore, they have been heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respective facts which have given rise to these three Special Civil Applications may first be narrated in brief.Special Civil Application No. 1894 of 1981 (District Rajkot):3. The petitioner Shri Mukundrai Jivram Pandit, Chairman, Drainage Committee, Rajkot Municipal Corporation, has assailed the order dated 20th May, 1981 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereby, under the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. 59 of 1949)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the said Act'), the Government of Gujarat suspended the exe...
Tag this Judgment!Kalavad Vanik Sangh and ors. Vs. Kalavad Nagar Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR78
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Petitioners who are residents of Kalavad town in Jamnagar district have filed this petition challenging the action of the respondent Kalavad Nagar Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Panchayat') in demanding and collecting tax on buildings and lands (house-tax) from them from April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1979.2. Facts leading this petition briefly stated are as under. By a resolution dated October 12, 1973, the respondent Panchayat decided to impose tax on buildings and lands with effect from April 1, 1973. It is not in dispute that necessary formalities of publication etc. as required by the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') were complied with. Objections received from the inhabitants of Kalavad town in response to the public notice were considered by the respondent Panchayat and thereafter a resolution was passed by it to impose tax at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the annual l...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Rasiklal Kapadia Vs. Jayantilal Vrajlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj52; (1982)2GLR805
N.H. Bhatt, J.1 to 10. x x x x 11. The learned Judges also held that the suit property, namely, S. No. 228, was not the property of the plaintiff's predecessor and, therefore, cannot be the property of the plaintiff also. Here also, the learned Judges have clearly gone wrong. They have relied upon two judgments of M. U. Shah J. One is the case of Bapalal Godadbhai Kothari v. Charity Commr., (1966) 7 Guj LR 825 and the other is the case of Lallubhai v. Vrijbhushanlal, (1967) 8 Guj LR 42. These judgments can be said to be no good law. Prior to these judgments, there was holding the field a single Judge's judgment. It is the case of Ishwarlal Nanalal v. Ghanchi Chimanlal R., ILR (1963) Guj 767 which was delivered by late Mr. Justice Mody. There was one earlier judgment of J. M. Shelat J. in the case of Kuberbhai Shivdas v. Mahant Purshottamdas Kalyandas (1961) 2 Guj LR 564, which held that the enquiry held by the Deputy or the Charity Commissioner under Section 19 was by no means an admin...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dahiben, Vs. Jesingbhai Bijalbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas257(Guj); (1983)1GLR208
Bhatt, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos. 17/1971 and 18/1971, filed by the claimants, arising out of a single accident which had taken place near Ankleshwar on Rajpipla Road at about 11-00 p.m. on April 27, 1971, in which truck No. GTB 6177, belonging to opponent No. 2 insured with opponent No. 3 and driven by opponent No. 1 was involved. In both these claim petitions, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Broach District at Broach (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by its judgment and award dated November 21, 1972, has awarded an amount of Rs. 7,800 in Claim Petition No. 17/71 and Rs. 1,000 in Claim Petition No. 18/71 and ordered opponent No. 1 to pay the aforesaid amount to the respective appellant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition and proportionate costs thereon. However, both the claim petitions against opponents Nos. 2 and 3 were dismissed by the Tribunal with costs. Therefore, the respective appellant...
Tag this Judgment!N.H. Dave, Inspector of Customs Vs. Mohmed Akhtar HussaIn Ibrahim Iqba ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT353(Guj); (1982)2GLR792
Thakkar, C.J.1. 'Purposeless and Pointless' is a phrase the existentialist philosophers may unhesitatingly employ in connection with their views on 'life'. But a Court of Law would be extremely reluctant to employ such a phrase in the context of a provision of law enacted by the Parliament in its wisdom. Considerations regarding respect for the law -makers apart, the Court itself would be understandably anxious to interpret a provision in a manner which renders it 'meaningless'. And if this approach is made it is impossible to assent to the proposition that the whole purpose of empowering a Customs Officer to arrest a person reasonably believed to have committed an offence under the Customs Act is to enable the Magistrate (before and he is required to be produced within twenty-four hours) to see his face and permit him to go without anything more. 2. The Customs Officer it is said, has the power to arrest and release on bail. If he refuses to release him or the arrested person refuses ...
Tag this Judgment!Pareshkumar Mahendrabhai Shah and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj173
A.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. Two groups of students (i) those who passed their Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in October1981 and April 1982 (hereinafter called 'the first batch') and (ii) those who passed their Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in the preceding years (hereinafter called 'the second batch') are locked in combat in this group of petitions which raise the question of eligibility of the second batch for admission to the First Semester of the B. E. Degree course in certain colleges run by or under the control of the State Government. The Rules for Admission to the First Semester of the B. E. Degree course are framed by the State Government for each academic year. Admission to Engineering Colleges run by the State Government as well as certain other institutions is governed and regulated by the Rules framed in that behalf by the State Government from year to year. Accordingly, in supersession of existing rules, the Government of Gujarat in the Education Department by ...
Tag this Judgment!Tejubai and ors. Vs. General Manager, Western Railway and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: II(1984)ACC233; (1982)2GLR787
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. The appcllants-original claimants in Compensation Case No. 43 of 1980 have filed the present appeal, as their claim was rejected by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Ex-Offieio Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), by his judgment and award dated 11-9-1981. A few relevant facts of the case are as under.2. The applicant No. 1--appellant No. 1 herein is the wife and application Nos. 2 to 5--application Nos. 2 to 5 are sons and daughter of Sabebsnh Vajesinh Mahida who was serving as Diesel Assistant, in the grade of Rs. 290-350, plus allwances in Western Railway with head-quarters at Godhra. According to the applicant Sahebsinh died during the course of employment and the present applisation, being his heirs, are entitled to receive cpmpensation of Rs. 23,100/-. The deceased was serving in the Western Railway as Diesel Assistant and his main duty was to assist the driver of the goods train, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirbhai Chhaganlal Vs. Ranjit Ratilal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2261; (1982)2GLR718
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. Both these petitions arc filed challenging the same order passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmaedabad, on 27-5-1981, by which he dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 42 of 1981, holding that the revision application does not lie. While dismissing the said revision application, though he held that revision application is not maintainable observed that point No. 2 raised by him, 'Whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in ordering the restoration of possession (under Section 456 of the Cr. P.C.) to the complainant', does not survive for consideration, and if necessary, in the affirmative.2. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge pertaining to point No. 2 raised by him, in the affirmative, original complainant Ranjitbhai Ratilal has come to this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 449 of 1981, and original accused Fakirbhai Chhaganlal Bhagat, who had filed the revision...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dahiben Vs. Jesingbhai Bijalbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: II(1984)ACC74
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Motor Accident Clajm Petition Nos. 17/1971 and 18/1971 filed by the claimants arising out of a single accident which had taken place near Ankleshwar on Rajpipla Road at about 11.00 p.m. on 27-4-1971 in which truck No. GTB 6177 belonging to opponent Np. 2 insured with opponent No. 3 and driven by opponent No.1 wasinvolved. In both these claim petitions, the Motors Acciclents Claims Tribunal, Broach District at Broach (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'), by his judgment and award dated November 21, 1972 has awarded an amount of Rs. 7, 800/- in claim petition No. 17/71 and Rs. 1,000/- in claim petition No. 18/71 and ordered the opponent No. 1 to pay the aforesaid amount to the respective appellant with interest at the rate of 6 percent p.a. from the date of the petition and proportionate costs thereon. However, both the claim petitions against opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were dismissed by the Tribunal with costs, Therefore, the respective ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »