Gujarat Court March 1985 Judgments
Central Bank of India, Kutch Vs. P.R. Garments Industries Pvt. Ltd., S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Guj113; [1987]62CompCas669(Guj); (1985)2GLR919
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant, original plaintiff Central Bank of India has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree in so far as the trial Court has refused to decree the interest at the contractual rate of 16 1/2% per annum and against the quarterly instalment of Rs. 5,000/- with interests due against the decretal dues of Rs. 9, 23,521.44p. 2. The respondents-defendants are a Private Limited Company and their two Directors have been held personally, jointly and severally liable along with the Company because they have given personal guarantees. The defendants had executed several documents on 30th July, 1977. For obtaining advances and credit facility one was letter of credit facility with a limit of Rs. 5, 00,000/-, one was over-draft facility with a limit of Rs. 25,000/- and the third was cash credit with a limit of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Thus, there was a total credit facility up to the limit of Rs. 13,25,000/-. There were also personal guarantees executed by the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Karsan Hira Vadhia Vs. K.S. Dilipsinhji, Addl. Secretary to Government ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR952
J.P. Desai, J.1. (His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, further observed:)3. The position of law is that a document which is in favour of the detenu or which is likely to tilt the balance in favour of the detenu or tilt the balance one way or the other is required to be placed before the detaining authority and if that is not done, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority will be vitiated. If a statement made by the detenu before the customs authorities is placed before the detaining authority for considering whether the detention order should be passed, it is necessary that it should be brought to the notice of the detaining authority that the detenu had retracted the said confessional statement and if that has not been done, it will naturally vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. This is what is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashadevi v. Shivraj and Anr. A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 447. This position of law is not even disputed ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Vs. Punabhai Zerabhai Koli
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR263
Ravani, J. 1. These eight appeals and three others arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main). Panchmahals at Godhra. Three other appeals; namely, First Appeals Nos. 1908, 1909 and 1910 of 1984, have been dismissed by our order dated March 6, 1985, on the ground that the amounts awarded therein were small and it was not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions. 2. The cleaner and other employees employed for the purpose of loading and unloading goods, and who were travelling in the vehicle in question, met with an accident. They themselves or their dependants, as the case may be, filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Godhra. The claim petitions have been allowed to the extent indicated in the award. The insurance company has also been held liable in view of clause I.M.T. 16 of the insurance policy. We are happy to note that the Tribunal has adopted a just and reasonable approach in construing this ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Vs. Punabhai Zerabhai Koli
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC238
A.P. Ravani, J.1. These eight appeals and three others arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims, namely, Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra. Three other appeals, First Appeals Nos. 1908, 1909 and 1910 of 1984, have been dismissed by our order dated March 6,1985, on the ground that the amount awarded therein were small and it was not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions.2. The cleaner and other employees employed for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods, who were travelling in the vehicle in question, met with the accident. They themselves or their dependents as the case may be, filed the claim petitions before the Motor accident claims tribunal, Godhra,. The claim petitions have been allowed to the extent indicated in the award. The Insurance Company has also been held liable in view of Clause l.M.T. 16 of the Insurance Policy. We are happy to note that the tribunal has adopted just and reasonable approach in construing thi...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Punabhai Zerabhai Koli and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC253; (1985)2GLR871
A.P. Ravani, J.1. These eight appeals and three others arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra. Three other appeals, namely, First Appeal Nos. 1908, 1909 and 1910 of 1984, have been dismissed by our order dated March 6, 1985, on the ground that the amount awarded therein were small and it was not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions.2. The cleaner and other employees employed for the purpose of loading and unloading goods, who were travelling in the vehicle in question, met with the accident. They themselves or their dependents as the case may be, filed the claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Godhra. The claim petitions have been allowed to the extent indicated in the award. The insurance company has also been held liable in view of Clause I.M.T. 16 of the insurance policy. We are happy to note that the Tribunal has adopted just and reasonable approach in construing this c...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhuprasad Chhotalal Raval Since Deceased Through Is Appointed Succ ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR907
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal by the trustees of a Public Trust arises from the proceedings under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and is directed against the order of the City Civil Court in the application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In the inquiry No. 1053/68 by an order dated 29th December, 1978 it was held that the suit property was the property of the Public Trust. In Appeal No. 21/71 the Joint Charity Commissioner confirmed that finding by his order dated 29th October, 1974. Being aggrieved thereby Respondent No. 1 Madhusudan Girdharlal Achariya filed an application under Section 72 of the Act being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 1975 before the City Civil Court. The City Civil Court by its Judgment dated 17th August, 1976 allowed his application and it was held that the suit property was not the property of the Public Trust by upholding the contention of the first respondent that he had become the owner by adverse possession. The trustee...
Tag this Judgment!Kiritkumar Kantilal Malani and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1077
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition depicting the usual tug of war going on between various sections of the public servants, whose importance in our democratic society cannot be over-emphasised, though sometimes it occurs to us that people concentrate more on their rights and less on their duties, their energy and time having been focussed essentially on pay, pension and promotions, the well-known trio of public service.2. This petition by 18 petitioners working as Sales Tax Inspectors under the State service is against the State of Gujarat and six of their colleagues because of the question of priority in the matter of promotion and the apple of discord is promotion to the post of the Sales Tax Officer from the post of Sales Tax Inspector held by these contesting parties. For the purpose of becoming eligible for promotion, there are the Recruitment Rules, which are at Annexure A, styled as Sales Tax Officer (Sales Tax Department) Recruitment Rules, 1969. Rule 2 of those Rules deals wi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vallabhdas Manjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Guj)379; [1987]163ITR59(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. In this group of three references at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda, the dispute relates to the attraction of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purposes of clubbing the income of the minor sons admitted to the benefits of partnership, or for that matter, of the wife from the profits of the firm with the income of the father or the husband, as the case may be, where such father or husband is a partner in the same firm in his representative capacity. We, therefore, intend to dispose of this group of references by this common judgment, though the questions referred to us are not precisely identical. 2. The dispute is covered so far as this court is concerned by the decision in Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K. D. Dixit, ITO : [1979]118ITR122(Guj) , where the Division Bench has held that if one of the partners in a firm is a partner in a representative capacity for and on behalf of his joint family, the mere fact that his spouse is also a...
Tag this Judgment!Somabhai Ruvabhai Gamit Vs. Ayyubbhai Mustufabhal Sheikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC78
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The original claimant who met with an automobile accident and in whose favour an award of Rs.31,465/- has been passed on 25-9-1980 by the Motor Accident Claim,s Tribunal (main)Suratinmotor Accident Claims Petition No. 288 of 1979, has preferred this appeal and has prayed for enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/- The dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation only.2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact the appellant met with an automobile accident and as a result of the injury received by him left leg was required to be aputated. The Tribul awarded compensation as follows: Rs. (1) Pain, shock and suffering. 20,000.00 (2) Future economic loss. 10,440,00 (3) Expenses. 625.00 ____________ 31,065.00However, in the operative portion of the order, the tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 31,465/- and has directed the respondents original opponents to pay the said amount with 6% running interest from the date of application till realisation together with ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj.) P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC30; 1987(11)LC275(Gujarat); 1987(27)ELT393(Guj)
Bhatt, J.1. Mr. D.A. Dave deletes the respondent no. 5 because he is covered by the respondent no. 1. 2. The respondents are served. This is petition pertaining to the duty of Handloom concession under the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953. The prayers in the petition are as follows :- (A) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the Notice to show cause dated 3-9-1978 at Annexure 'E' and order passed thereon on 26-6-1984 and Annexure 'K'. (B) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction, prohibiting the respondents, their servants and agents from recovering any duty of excise from the petitioners under the Provisions of Khadi and other Handloom' Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »