Gujarat Court September 1984 Judgments
Union of India Vs. Urvish Snuff Factory
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT823(Guj); (1985)2GLR1011
1. In this Second Appeal by the Union of India (excise authorities) certain substantial questions of law have been framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal. Moat of these questions relate to the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the matters arising under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Rules thereunder. 2. The facts leading to this Second Appeal are brief and simple. The respondent No. 1 herein (the plaintiff) is a partnership firm dealing in tobacco. It was issued a show cause notice (ex. 56) dt. 19th February, 1968 wherein it was alleged that M/s. Urvish Snuff Factory (the plaintiff) had removed 3175 Kgs. of Black Chopadia whole leaf tobacco from their warehouse premises otherwise than as provided by the Rules and they had not produced their account books before the Central Excise officers for inspection and the plaintiff was required to show cause as to why duty should not be recovered in respect of the tobacco and why penalty should not be im...
Tag this Judgment!Soni Amratlal Govindji and anr. Vs. Soni Premchand Popatlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR266
R.A. Mehta, J.1. These two Second Appeals arise out of the common judgment in two Civil Appeals Nos. 55 and 56 of 1976 which arose out of the common judgment in Regular Civil Suits Nos. 136 and 137 of 1972 which were consolidated.2. The respondent is the auction purchaser of the two suit premises (equity of redemption) which were mortgaged by the original, owner, Prabhatsinh with the present appellant No. 1 Amratlal Govindji, in the years 1962 (ex. 24) and 1964 (ex. 25). The plaintiff contended that he had paid the mortgage debt to the defendant No. I, the mortgagee and the mortgage has been redeemed and inspite of such redemption the defendants have continued in possession without any right, title or interest and hence he prayed for a decree for possession against them.3. The defendants contended that they were the tenants of the suit premises (western and eastern portion respectively) prior to the creation of the mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1 and, therefore, they continued to...
Tag this Judgment!Shravankumar Mahadev Dekote and ors. Vs. the Arvind Mills Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)2GLR767
B.K. Mehta, J.1. In this group of petitions a short but interesting question arises about the right of an individual workman vis-a-vis trade union and particularly representative union which has been invested with the right of exclusive representation. The basic question in all these petitions is : Whether an individual workman can be excluded from initiating Industrial Court proceedings or excluded from such 'proceedings where the order is passed on concession made by the representative union resulting into some evil consequences for a workman or a group of workmen? This question arises in diverse facts and circumstances. In the first group viz. Special Civil Applications Nos. 1747/80, 1023/73 and 453/79 it relates to the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent mill company in the matter of bonus, while in Special Civil Application Nos. 1424/79 and 850/79 it relates to the industrial court proceedings taken for declaration on cessesion of workmen as illegal strike. By way o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh R. Desai and ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Guj154; (1985)2GLR283
ORDER1. The Petitioners belong to a relatively affluent section of the society. Petitioner No. 1 is a doctor and runs Dhanlaxmi Urological Hospital in the locality of Juna Wadaj area of city of Ahmedabad. One of the petitioners is a Trustee of a public trust known as Mahirachand. S. Raheja (Radhaswamiwala) Social Centre. All the petitioners reside and/or carry on their occupation in the locality of Juna Wadaj. The petitioners have averred that they are suffering special damage on account of the alleged nuisance caused by hawkers, hutment dwellers and others. However, the petition has a camouflage of public interest litigation in as much as the petitioners claim the relief by which all the residents of the locality may be benefited. In substance, the petition provides an illustration as to how the concept of 'Public interest litigation' can be twisted, distorted and then misused so as to deprive the numerous citizens of their right to exist.2. By this petition, the petitioners pray that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii, Ahmedabad Vs. Savitaben N. Ami ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR135(Guj)
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. The question referred to this court reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 9,625 being part of Rs. 21,000 received by the assessee under the agreement dated February 27, 1967 is exempt as gratuity under section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. For the assessment year 1971-72 for which the corresponding previous year is that ended March 31, 1971, the assessee, who is an individual, functioned as the managing director of M/s. Jyoti Limited, a public limited company. This was under an agreement dated February 27, 1967, which was to be operative from January 1, 1966, for a term of five years. Clause 5(viii) of that agreement provided for payment of gratuity to the managing director at one month's salary per year for each year of the tenure of appointment calculated on the basis of the last salary drawn by the managing director at the time of the termination of appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Vs. Dyanuba K. Nikam and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR1; (1985)ILLJ489Guj
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. Same question arises in all these petitions. The Food Corporation of India who is the employer challenges orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the said Act. The dispute relates to such payment to the employees who are members of the Transport and Dock Workers' Union. The controversy is quite simple. There may be employees who start their career on a salary below Rs. 1,000/- and in the course of their career get enhanced salaries. When such salary exceeds Rs. 1,000/- per mensem (Rs. 1,600/- per mensem after the amendment under Act 25 of 1984). Such persons are no longer entitled to claim that they are employees entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The definition of 'employee' without the Explanation thereto would operate to exclude any person employed on wages exceeding Rs. 1,000/- per mensem as it stood prior to amendment by Act 25 of 1984 and Rs. 1,600...
Tag this Judgment!P. Chidambaram, General Secretary, Gujarat Mazoor Panchayat and ors. V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Guj17; (1985)1GLR353
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. However we may be tempted to treat this petition as a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution and to interfere with an order which prima facie we feel calls for notice by this Court, we are not doing this only because we do not want to set up a precedent of interference by this Court with an order passed by a Civil Court ex parte, which order could be sought to be vacated by filing objections before the same Court. No doubt, it is pointed out that the peculiar history of this case and particularly the directions given by this Court earlier as also the urgency of finally determining the injunction matter calls for the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. But while declining to give any relief under Art. 227 at the moment, we could very well issue directions which would make the resort by the petitioners to the Court which passed the ad interim order efficacious.2. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), N...
Tag this Judgment!Vyara Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Vyara Vs. Vyara Nagar Pan ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj204; (1985)1GLR355
ORDER1. The petitioner Vyara Agricultural Produce Market Committee has filed this Special Civil Application against the judgment and order D/- 8-12-1978 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, in Revision Application N o. 182/77 under S. 305 Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to have exemption from tax levied by the Vyara Nagar Panchayat, Vyara -respondent 1.2. The petitioner-Market Committee was paying tax to the Nagar Panchayat in respect of its buildings and lands as the market yard was within the limits of Vyara Nagar Panchayat. It is the contention of the petitioner that Vyara Nagar Panchayat failed to give facility of public lights within the market yard. Thereafter when the Nagar Panchayat issued bills for taxes for buildings and lands of the petitioner Market Committee, the petitioner refused to pay the taxes and entered into correspondence with the authorities.3. The Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat thereafter is...
Tag this Judgment!Jasmat Parshottam Ganesh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT548(Guj); (1985)2GLR1121
B.S. Kapadia, J. 1. The above-mentioned Revision Application have been filed by the original accused Nos. 6, 4, 1, 5 and 2 respectively against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeals Nos. 70/82, 73/82, 83/82 and 78/82 filed by them against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh in the Criminal Case No. 52 of 1981. 2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 19th June, 1982 in the aforesaid case had convicted the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 for offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act and passed the order of seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year, against each of the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the aforesaid appeals partly allowed the appeals confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junaga...
Tag this Judgment!Thakorlal Ambalal Patel Vs. Nagarbhai Parshottam and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR350
M.B.Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 18th August 1978 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B. Section 177 of 1976 confirming the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Collector, Chorasi Prant, Surat, in Tenancy Appeal No. 14 of 1976, who confirmed the order passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chorasi, holding that respondents Nos. 1 & 2 were entitled to purchase the land bearing S. No. 210/2 admeasuring 0 acre-25 gunthas of the sim of village Jahangirabad, Taluka, Chorasi, along with the bungalow and well situated on the said land, the petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. S. No. 210/2 admeasuring 0 acres-25 gunthas assessed at Rs. 4-12 P. of village Jahangirabad, Taluka Chorasi, was owned by the widow Bai Ujamben-respondent No. 3. Now, it is not disputed in this petition that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were tenants of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »