Gujarat Court October 1983 Judgments
Fit Tight, Nuts and Bolts Limited Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR261
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The 1st petitioner-Company is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bombay and one of its branches at Dharampur in Junagadh district. The second petitioner is the Chairman and shareholder of the 1st petitioner-Company.2. The Petitioner-Company purchased from the Collector, Junagadh agricultural land bearing Section No. 1/2/part admeasuring about 150 acres situate within the revenue limits of village Dharampur in Ranavav taluka of the Junagadh district. By an order of March 14, 1968, the State Government granted the said land to the petitioner-Company at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre. The Collector, Junagadh had passed an order in that behalf on March 20, 1968. The land was purchased for purposes of putting up the factory of the petitioner-Company. The Collector by the said order of March 20, 1968, fixed non-agricultural assessment on the said land at the Rs.-Ana-Pai rate of 0-0-2 per sq. yard. It was also s...
Tag this Judgment!Mistry Vijubhai Mulchanddas Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR523
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner who is the owner of and occupying land of Section No. 54 situate within the revenue limits of village Jesalpur in Chanasma taluka of Mehsana district has moved this Court for appropriate writ, order and direction to quash and set aside the Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, and also the Government circular bearing No. 743 of 1979 of June 7, 1979 and the notice of recovery of May 15, 1980 raising demand for non-agricultural assessment of Rs. 1,841/- for the period from 1-8-76 to 31-7-1979 at the rate of six paise per sq. metre of the area of the land.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the population of village Jesalpur is below 5,000, it has been included in Class 'C' by the Taluka Development Officer, Chanasma and clubbed it with Chanasma town by the impugned notification.3. Besides the contentions urged in Special Civil Application No. 583 of 1978 and other companion ma...
Tag this Judgment!The Arvind Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1140
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this group of petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of the Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977, enacted by the State Government by the Government Notification of April 24, 1978 under Section 214 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code with effect from September 1, 1976. The petitioners also challenge the Bombay Land Revenue (Gujarat Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 by which it, inter alia, sought to amend Section 214 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') so as to empower the State Government to make rules retrospectively and purporting to validate the Amendment Rules so far as they levied non-agricultural assessment retrospectively.2. Since the Validation Act, the Amendment Rules and the consequent levy as aforesaid have been impugned on almost identical grounds in this group of petitions, except Special Civil Applications Nos. 2249/81 and 1786/80 which are to be disposed of by separate orders, we propose to set out ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaka Ba and Kala Budh Public Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR923; [1984]146ITR9(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. A short but interesting question which arises in this petition is as to what is the scope and ambit of s. 35CCA of the I.T. Act, 1961, and particularly sub-s. (2)(b) thereof as amended by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1983. The question arises in the following context. 2. The petitioner is a public charitable trust constituted under the deed of trust dated November 23, 1972, having several public charitable objects. It is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and is also granted recognition under s. 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the I.T. Department from time to time. It appears that the petitioner had decided to set up a well-equipped hospital of 100 beds in a phased manner at an estimated cost exceeding Rs. 1 crore for the general public in a rural area at village Utaraj, within Hansot Taluka of Broach District. It should be recalled that by the Finance Act, 1978, s. 35CCA was enacted and put on th...
Tag this Judgment!Vihabhai Ramdas Patel Vs. Hemtuji Shivaji Dabhi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR883
M.B. Shah, J. 1. Opponent No. 1 Hemtuji Shivaji Dabhi against whom a first information report has been lodged stating that he had given dagger blow to one Gopalbhai Ramdas at about 9-15 a.m. on 29-5-83 at village Zulasan is released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, by his judgment and order dated 29-8-83 solely on the ground that the investigating officer had submitted interim charge-sheet and there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for submission of interim charge-sheet. 2. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicant (brother of the deceased) and on behalf of opponent No. 2 submitted that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is on the face of it illegal. It was their submission that there is no question of submitting interim charge-sheet in the present case merely because along with the charge-sheet report of the Chemical Analyser was not annexed. As the investigating officer was awaiting the said report, he had submitted a charge-she...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Gram Sevak Maha Mandal and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR410
S.A. Shah, J.1. The question involved in these two petitions is whether the State Government has power to appoint, by transfer, officers of the State Service to the Panchayat Service to which the petitioners belong. The contention was on the basis that Panchayat Service was not a State Service and, therefore, the State Government has no power to appoint its own officers by transfer. The first petition is in respect of promotional post of Extension Officers whereas the second petition is in respect of promotion to the post of Agriculture Officers from the lower Cadre.2. Both the petitions involve a common question of law as to interpretation of some of the rules of Gujarat Panchayat Services (Classification & Recruitment) Rules. 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, similar orders of Government and, therefore, they are heard together. The facts of Special Civil Application No. 1611 of 1978 are as under:3. Petitioner No. I is Gujarat State Gram Sevak Maha Mandal and petitioner Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-v Vs. Girdharram Hariram Bhagat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Guj)255; [1985]154ITR10(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. Since the questions referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, and the rival contentions urged in connection therewith are common and identical in both these references, we propose to answer the questions referred to us by this common judgment. 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 214 of 1978, we are concerned with the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, while in Income-tax Reference No. 68 of 1977, we are concerned with the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. 3. The necessary and relevant facts leading to these two references may be briefly stated as under : The assessee is an individual and is a direct descendant of one well-known and renowned saint in Saurashtra area in particular and Gujarat in general, known and fondly called as Jalarambapa. The assessee is the son of Hariram, who was the daughter's son's son of the said Jalarambapa and was adopted by him. It is claimed that Jalarambapa was a person of saintly disposition right f...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Vasavacia Vs. the General Manager, Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj102; (1983)2GLR1529
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. Bonded labour in its primitive form might . Have disappeared from most parts of the country, more due to pressure of public opinion and civic consciousness than the awareness or the operation of Article 23 of our Constitution embodying a mandate against forced labour. But, all the same, sophisticated forms of such bonded labour persist and thrive in many pockets. The task of identifying them and locating the exploited groups is none too easy, Exploitation of labour being a phenomena older than the known authentic history of man cannot be banished overnight by any legislative or constitutional flat or even by enlightened public opinion. The Courts in this country are to be the sentinels of human 'freedom and this duty enjoins them to be ever vigilant to extend protection to the exploited class. In recent times. Courts have understood their adjudicatory functions as not merely limited to settlement of inter-partly disputes or issues raised but as envisaging a larger rol...
Tag this Judgment!Jayesh A. Joshipura Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR761
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Article 14 thereof, the petitioner who has passed higher secondary examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, has challenged the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for being admitted to 1st M. B.B.S. course conducted at B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad from June 1982. Respondent No. 3 who is the Ddean of the medical college has taken the view that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for admission to the said course in view of Rule 1 of the rules for admission to first M.B.B.S. course and 1st B.D.S. course at Government medical colleges as the petitioner cannot be said to have passed the qualifying examination for admission to the concerned course as defined by the said rule.2. In order to highlight the grievance of the petitioner in this petition, a few relevant facts must be noted at the outset. The petitioner has passed the higher...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›