Gujarat Court July 1985 Judgments
Jilla Panchayat Vs. Babliben Dhirubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC459
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. 'Dhirubhai was killed in an accident by a road roller while he was walking alongwith the road with a bicycle in hand. The deceased was serving in Advance Mills, Ahmedabad, and the remuneration that he received ranged from Rs. 450/- to Rs. 570/- per month. The deceased was a young man, aged about 32 years, (in tbe post-mortem notes his age is estimated to be 35 years). He has left behind his widow and five minors. The Tribunal has estimated his average monthly income at Rs. 500/- and on that basis has come to the conclusion that he spent about Rs. 400/- per month on the family. Applying the mutliplier of 15, he came to the conclusion that the family would be entitled to Rs. 72,000/- by way of economic loss and Rs. 1,000/- for funeral expenses. For loss of expectation of life, consortium, etc. another Rs. 27,000/-came to be estimated and thus the Tribunal reached the figure of Rs. 1 lakh and holding the deceased responsible to the extent of 40 per cent, sliced it down t...
Tag this Judgment!Jina Meru and anr. Vs. Narshinhbhai Mathurbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC543
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This group of appeals arisen out of the decision of the Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar, dated 6th March 1951 in Claim Applications Nos. 19 to 28, 23 to 48 61 to 74, 91 and 131 to 134 all of 1980 and 12 of 1981. A motor truck No. GIG 1498 met with an accident on the morning of 18th October 1979 at about 10.00 A.M. approximately 80 feet from the railway crossing on the New Port Road, Bhavnagar. At the time when the said truck set with the accident, 75 persons were travelling therein four of them died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident, several others were injured and some escaped unhurt. The said accident gave rise to 46 claim petitions and the Claims Tribunal made 46 awards for verying amounts in favour of the claimants. Against the said 46 awards the present 34 First Appeals and 12 Revision Applications were preferred in this Court. Since the Revision Applications concerned awards of less than Rs. 2,000/- they were rejected on 18th February 1982 without pre...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatkumar Arvindkumar Dave Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1411
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of ft common judgment passed by Justice Ravani. The petitions have been filed by the appellants for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10-6-85 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. By that order, the Commissioner of Police has prohibited the public from driving two-wheeled vehicles, viz., mopeds, scooters, motor cycles, etc. with a pillion rider for a limited period of 15 days. Now we are told that this has been extended for a further period ending with 31st July 1985. This extension was subject to certain exception wherein the first respondent has given permission to the children, women and old people to use the vehicle as a pillion rider. This order was purported to be passed under Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The first respondent in his affidavit to the main petition has stated that such type of order was passed due to the fact that there are disturbances and miscreants have...
Tag this Judgment!Bavabhai Sukhabhai Patel, Sarpanch of Haria Gram Panchayat Vs. State o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR377
A.P. Ravani, J.1. By notification dated May 25, 1978 (Annexure 'F' to Special Civil Application No. 1380 of 1978), the State Government directed that the land of certain survey numbers of Haria Gram Panchayat the petitioner herein be excluded from the revenue limits of the petitioner Panchayat and be included in village Atul. This notification contained a condition that on account of this order being passed, whatever the financial loss the Haria Gram Panchayat may suffer, shall be reimbursed by the Atul Products Ltd. respondent No. 1 and that written consent of Atul Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') in this behalf be obtained. This notification has been passed under the provisions of Section 9A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'). The petitioner-Panchayat has challenged the legality and validity of this notification. When this petition was pending, the Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat, issued another notification dated Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Unitex Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR183
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioners want to dedare that the excise duty is not payable on the cloth processed by the petitioners and a writ has to be issued directing the respondents to refund the amount of excise duty so far recovered by the respondents on the processed cloth removed by the petitioners from their factory and for other consequential relief.2. The main contention raised by the petitioners in all these Special Civil Applications is that the process they have made will not attract the definition of 'manufacture' given in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, making them liable to pay the excise duty under Tariff Items Nos. 19 or 12 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In support of their claim, the petitioners relied upon the decision in the case of Vijay Textile and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 20 Gujarat Law Reporter 944, wherein a Division Bench of this High Court has held that processing of cotton fa...
Tag this Judgment!Sunali Textile Corporation Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC177; 1986LC26(Gujarat); 1986(23)ELT433(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. This petition raises a question whether surgical dressings such as hospital/maternity/sanitary pads are drugs or not. If it is treated as drug as contemplated by the petitioners, they would be entitled to exemption under Tariff Item 68, being notification No. 55/75 CE dated 1-3-85 as specified item No. 19. The said Notification exempts from Tariff Item No. 68' all drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermedients not elsewhere specified.' 2. The contention of the respondent-authorities is that these pads are not drugs because drug is one, which is used for curing any ailments in human body and the hospital/maternity/sanitary pads are not used for such purposes. This question is practically concluded by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Rainbow Surgical Dressing Mfg. Co. v. Union of India and others. - 21 (2) G.L.R. 632. In that case, the products were such as gauses and surgical roll bandages. The affidavit-in-reply in that case stated that 'I admi...
Tag this Judgment!AshwIn N. Parekh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR569; (1987)IILLJ304Guj
1. The petitioner joined the Western Railway service on 17th August, 1972 as a Khalasi and served at Viramgam upto 3rd June, 1978 when his service has terminated by the impugned order, Annexure 'H' dated 1st June, 1978. That order recites that his services shall stand terminated with effect from 3rd June, 1978 (A.N.) on account of misconduct, namely (i) fraudulent use of duty pass No. B. 585078 (ii) impersonation as Dhansukhlal and (iii) misrepresentation to CCS-CCG. It was clarified by the said order that he was not eligible to notice pay and/or retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred the present petition. The facts giving rise to his petition briefly stated are as under. 2. After the petitioner joined service as Khalasi in 1972, he worked as such at Viramgam upto the beginning of June, 1978 without any break in service. On 20th May, 1977 he left for Bombay by the 6 Up train and reached Bombay on the...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutlal Keshavbhai Patel Vs. Ismail Ibrahim Badat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR136
J.P. Desai, J.1. The facts leading to the filing of this First Appeal may be briefly stated as follows:Amrutlal Keshavlal Patel, the appellant in this appeal executed a trust deed on 26-11-1979 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 1/1, Block No. 2, admeasuring 14 acres-6 gunthas at Village Boriach, Taluka Navsari. One Dargah of Gebansha Pir is situated in the eastern part of this land nearby the Highway. Hindus as well as Muslims of village Boriach and surrounding villages have faith in the said Dargah and many people visit the Dargah every year and a fair is also held every year. It was necessary to make repairs to the said Dargah and, therefore, the appellant Amrutlal dedicated 5 gunthas out of the aforesaid land of his ownership for the purpose of the said Dargah and created a trust by executing the deed on 26-11-1979. He filled in the prescribed form on 12-12-1979 for getting the trust registered as a Public Trust. Inquiry was held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Chhaganbhai Chamar and ors. Vs. A.K. Shah Addl. District Reg ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1337
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This petition is directed against the effort of the liquidator appointed under Section 108 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to recover the dues of the society from the petitioners on the strength of the fresh certificates obtained on 5th October 1977 (except one which is dated 3rd October 1977) under Section 103 of the Act. Before the society went into liquidation, it appears that awards were obtained against the petitioners between July and September 1961 and certificates of recovery were obtained thereafter between December 1961 and March 1962 under Section 103 of the Act. The contention on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, is that since recovery proceedings were not initiated for twelve years after the issuance of the certificates between December 1961 and March 1962, the remedy became barred by limitation and issuance of fresh certificates in favour of the liquidator in October 1977 could not give a fresh lease of life to a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›