Gujarat Court September 1982 Judgments
Vadilal Dairy Frozen Food Industries, Ahmedabad Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1982
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC210; 1983LC33D(Gujarat); 1983(12)ELT672(Guj); (1983)1GLR154
ORDERThakkar, C.J. 1. The central question is as regards interpretation of a provision for exemption contained in exemption notification as per Annexure 'A' whereby exemption is granted from payment of excise duty in respect of skimmed milk powder falling within item 1B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provided it is proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that such skimmed milk powder is intended for use for the regeneration of the liquid milk. The relevant portion reads thus :- '......the Central Government hereby exempts from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon, such quantities of skimmed milk powder, falling under Item No. 1B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (1 of 1944) as are used for the regeneration of liquid milk within the premises of the same factory of production of the skimmed milk powder : Provided that where such use is elsewhere than in the factory of production, the ex...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Chandraprakash Shethia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR142
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This is a group of four appeals filed by the State against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for enhancement of the fine imposed on the accused under Section 92 of the Factories Act. In the first two of the aforesaid appeals the respondent is one Chandraprakash Shethia and in the remaining two, the respondent is one Kamal Singh Shethia who are the factory owners. The abovesaid respondents were prosecuted under Section 63 of the Factories Act (Act 63 of 1948). The complaint filed against the aforesaid respondents was that on May 14, 1981 Mr. K.H. Sodha, Inspector, Factories, Ahmedabad, visited the factory in question at 11-15 A.M. and found an adult worker working in each of the four cases during the time which was notified as recess time. The period of work was displayed as follows:From 7-00 A.M. to 11-00 A. M. ... Working hours.From 11-00 A.M. to 11-30 A.M. ... RecessFrom 11-30 A.M. to 3-30 P.M. ... Working hours.At the trial the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Jani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR85
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner who is a railway employee has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the selection penal of the Class IV staff for promotion to posts in Class III service. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts.2. The petitioner, on the date of the petition, was working as a Junior Clerk in Western Railway, at Bhavnagar Para : that originally he was a Class IV employee. He was recruited in the railway service on 27-7-1954 in the Rajkot Division as a Gangman. Thereafter, he was transferred on the same post in Bhavnagar Para Division with effect from 30-9-1966. He was promoted to the post of a Tally Clerk which was Class III post by an order dated 19-10-1973. From the date of his promotion to the post of Tally Clerk i.e. from 21-10-1973, he went on working on the post althroughout save and exc...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanbhai R. Patel and Etc. Vs. Anand Municipality, Anand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj136; (1983)1GLR67
A.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. The question which arises for determination in these two petitions is, whether the State Government can in exercise of power conferred upon it by Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act') remove a Councillor of a Municipality from office for misconduct or disgraceful conduct committed in the discharge of his duties as the President of the Municipality or Chairman of a Committee constituted under Section 55 of the Act. The brief facts which may be stated for the disposal of these two petitions are as under.2. Re: Special Civil Application No. 2169 of 1981 :-- The petitioner of this petition was elected President of the Municipality under Section 31 of the Act sometime in 1971. The meeting of the General Board of the Municipality was called on 18th Feb. 1980 for sanctioning the annual budget for the year 1980-81. The budget was not sanctioned by the general Board at the said meeting. On 3rd Mar. 1980 a Resoluti...
Tag this Judgment!Mangaldas Nenumal Vs. Hasumati Jashwantrai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1364
R.J. Shah, J.1. A tenant whose Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 1979 against the order dated 21st November 1978 passed by the trial Court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1977 dismissing the fresh application for fixation of the standard rent was dismissed by the District Judge, Junagadh by his order dated 4th July 1981 holding that the said fresh application was not maintainable has come in revision before this Court raising an interesting contention, namely,Is a fresh application for fixation of standard rent on the same cause of action maintainable even though the previous application for fixation of standard rent is dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and no application for setting the dismissal aside as contemplated under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed Some of the undisputed facts in the present case are that the landlord had served a notice dated 26th December 1972 on the tenant. The tenant had given a ...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhabhai Gordhanbhai Vs. Gangaben D/O. Mohanbhai Gordhanbhai and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR359
S.L. Talati, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant No. 1 of Regular Civil Suit No. 128 of 1975 of the Court of the Civil Judge, (J.D.), Jambusar. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 is defendant No. 2.2. The facts which gave rise to this second appeal may be stated as under:One Gordhanbhai had certain properties and he had 2 sons by name, Varadhbhai and Mohanbhai. Mohanbhai joined religious order. That Mohanbhai had 2 daughters, Gangaben and Nathiben. Nathiben, original defendant No. 2, transferred her share in favour of Gangaben on 20th of June 1976. Gangaben, therefore, filed a suit and she claimed partition of the suit property and also prayed for accounts. The learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Jambusar, held that the plaintiff had 1/2 undivided share in lots 'A and B' undivided share in lot 'C' as described in the plaint. The learned Civil Judge passed a preliminary decree and appointed a Commissioner to effect partition in regard to the properties mentioned at...
Tag this Judgment!R.A. Maskati and ors. Vs. Fakirchand Maganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR702
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These 15 civil revision applications are preferred by the original plaintiffs-landlords under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act because both the trial court i.e. the court of Small Causes Ahmedabad in the respective suits and the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in the respective appeals held that the plaintiffs' suits for possession under Section 13(1)(hh) of the rented premises from the respective defendant tenant were not competent, because as required under Section 13(3A) and 13(3B) of the Bombay Rent Act, the certificate of the Tribunal constituted under Section 13(3B) was not produced at the time of institution of those suits or even thereafter. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of those suits, the common plaintiffs of those 15 suits and, therefore, the common petitioners in these 15 civil revision applications have filed these 15 revision applications.2. The Special Civil Application in question has been filed by those petitioners, who were th...
Tag this Judgment!Rambhai Jhenidas Panchal Vs. Lalitaben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj27; (1982)2GLR545
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J. 1. The petitioner is a tenant who has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below (and ?) has come by way of this revision petition under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Opponent-landlady filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1749 of 1974 in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad on various allegations against the petitioner to get a decree of eviction in her favour. Though she was non-suited on almost all the grounds, the suit was decreed in her favour on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Initially it was the case that the petitioner-tenant was given the premises on leave and licence basis and, therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, but ultimately it was conceded that the petitioner became the tenant and the proceedings went on under the Act. The suit premises were given to the petitioner under an agreement dated 10-3-1972 at the monthly rent of Rs. 90/- for a perio...
Tag this Judgment!Suthar Kanubhai Mohanbhai Vs. Mahendrabhai Dahyabhai Desai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj142; (1983)1GLR198
ORDERB.K. Mehta, J. 1. A short but interesting question arises as to whether lease of the superstructure put up by the lessee on the open plot of land amounts to sub-letting of the land and exposes the original lessee of the land to the consequences of eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'), as in force in this State. The question arises in the following circumstances :--2. In the suit filed by the original lessors of the land being Regular Civil Suit No. 219 of 1974 on the file of Civil Judge (J. D.) Sankheda, the plaintiff-landlord averred that open plot of land of S. No. 798/2 admeasuring about 20 gunthas, more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint, and situate oil the station road in Bahadurpur town of Sankheda taluka in Baroda district was let out originally to one Mohanbhai at the annual rent of Rs. 625/- for a period of one year prior to 1962, though i...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Nagindas Jariwala and Etc. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj82; (1983)1GLR313
ORDERN.H. Bhatt, J.1. These two revision applications respectively by the original defendant No. 4 and by the original defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are directed against the order of the executing court in the Special Darkhast No. 81 of 1971 pending in the court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) Surat. The challenge is laid against the acceptance of the bid at the court auction, the auction purchaser being the respondent No. 2 Hitendrakumar Jashwantlal Jariwala. The objection to the auction sale is based on the alleged irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been committed in the matter of conducting the auction sale.2. In the latter of the two revision applications, Mr. Sanjanwala has raised one neat question of law by recourse to Order 21, Rule 86 of the Civil Procedure Code. His submission is that after having deposited 25% of the purchase price spontaneously, the auction purchaser had failed to deposit the remainder of 75% within 15 days of the date of acceptance of the bid and this hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »