Gujarat Court August 1987 Judgments
New Bank of India Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas602(Guj); (1988)IILLJ33Guj
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. This special civil application is filed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent not to discontinue or remove petitioner No. 2 from the post of workmen-director of the New Bank of India on the board of directors until his successor is appointed by the respondent after following the due procedure laid down in clause 3(b) read with clause 2(h) of Schedule to the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980 (hereafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, questions the legality of discontinuing the workmen-director as and from September 1, 1987, even before a workmen-director is appointed in the board of directors of the bank. Learned counsel submits that the board of directors cannot function even for a s...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Desai Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1121; (1988)ILLJ474Guj
1. Petitioner joined the services of Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 1 herein ('respondent Bank' for short) as a Personnel Assistant as F Grade Officer on March 28, 1966. The payscale of F Grade Officer was Rs. 350-25-450. The petitioner was, it would appear, entitled to yearly increments of Rs. 25/- in the aforesaid grade. However, the respondent Bank withheld his increments for the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. The increment for the year 1969 was due on March 28, 1970, for the year 1970 on March 28, 1971 and for the year 1971 on March 28, 1972. The petitioner and the Bank of Baroda Officers Association ('Association' for short) of which he was member, made representations to the respondent Bank against withholding of three increments. The petitioner was informed that the case for release of his three increments which were stopped 'in view of the adverse reports against him' was submitted for consideration to the Committee of Executives at its meeting held on December 7, 1976. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Govindbhai Kanabhai Maru Vs. N.K. Desai, District Judge
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1159
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 2-1-1984 (Annexure-F) terminating his service on the ground that his work was not satisfactory. Mr. A.D. Padival, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is legally not sustainable, because according to him, the said order is based on several reports referred to in the affidavit-in-reply stating that the petitioner's work was not satisfactory. According to Mr. Padival, the termination was with a stigma and hence the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to be heard. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not given any show-cause notice or other opportunity to explain his conduct. Mr. Padival has further urged that although the petitioner was described as a part-time servant doing the work of sweeper, cleaning lavatory etc., but in fact, he was made to work for 5 to 6 hours a day and hence he should be treated as a full-time servant. In his submission, the impugned order deser...
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj169; (1988)1GLR133
ORDER1. Both these petitions raise common questions of facts and law and common contentions have been raised. The points raised in the petitions have been argued on this basis only. Therefore, both the matters are being disposed of by this common order. In course of the arguments the learned Advocate General has referred to the facts of Special C. A. Not, 1884/87, hence mostly the facts of this petition alone are referred to in the judgment. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1884 of 1987 is filed by the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') Special Civil Application No. 2255 of 1987 is filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the. Board). The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the minimum carrying capacity prescribed by the Railway with regard to BOXN wagon for loading slack coal As per the relevant tariff rules, whenever a wagon is indented and utilised, the goods loaded in such wagon are subject to A. m...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Bhatt, Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Manekchowk and Ahmedabad M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1265
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. In aforesaid revision applications a common point has arisen and, therefore, they are dealt with together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. As the facts are also common it is not necessary to state facts of each case. The short facts are that the complainant-Provident Fund Inspector had filed various complaints against the accused on the allegation that they have failed to pay contributions as stated in the complaints within the prescribed period and have committed offences punishable under Sections 14-A/14(1)(A) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Act, 1952 read with para 76 of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952. The said complaints were filed after obtaining necessary sanction from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.3. In the said complaints the accused came out with an application stating that the complaints are time-barred. On behalf of the prosecution it was contended that the offence is a continuing offence and, therefore, the question of li...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal J. Gadani Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj29; (1987)2GLR1141
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. As respondent No. 2 Sub-Registrar of Assurances. Ahmedabad is not returning the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner for registration, even though all formalities of registration are over, the petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to return his document and further direct both the respondents to return all those documents which are retained by the registering officers after registration to their respective owners. Respondent No. 2 has withheld the document of the petitioner for the purpose of referring it to the Collector of the district for determination of the true market value of the property since he believes that the market value referred in the document is very much undervalued.2. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the document is registered as per section 61(2) of the Registration Act 1908, the said document has to be returned to the person who, presented the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaksinh Hathisinh Jadeja and ors. Vs. Blabhadrasinh Narendraisinh Jh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ578; (1987)2GLR1219
ORDERP.M. Chauhan, J.1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is filed by the petitioners (original accused) challenging the Order dated 9-11-1984 in M. Enquiry Case No. 31 of 1984 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, directing Police Sub-Inspector, Wadhwan, to investigate the complaint under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code and submit the report.2. It transpires that the learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint had not examined the complainant before him under Section 200 or 202 of the Code and had not taken the cognizance of the offence on the complaint and directed the Police to investigate under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code.3. Opponent No, 1 filed the complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, against the petitioners, contending that petitioner 1, opponent 1, Prabhashanker Manilal Pandya and Sushilakumari Natvars...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnikant Ambalal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1152
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. In all the three Miscellaneous Criminal Applications identical questions of law and fact are involved, and the parties are same and, therefore, they are disposed of by common judgment.2. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 158 of 1985 arises out of the order in Criminal Case No. 1612 of 1984, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 159 of 1985 arises out of the order in Criminal Case No. 1613 of 1984, and Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 160 of 1985 arises out of the order in Criminal Case No. 1614 of 1984, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad, issuing process for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner on the complaint filed by opponent No. 2 Hitendrabhai Vadibhai Kapasi, the Accountant of Parekh Decorators.3. Opponent No. 2, the Accountant of Parekh Decorators, filed the complaint contending that he is serving as Accountant in Parekh Decorators and has no personal knowledge about ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepak Textile Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Guj)34; [1987]168ITR773(Guj)
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The following has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahemedabad, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be carried forward and set off against the assessable income for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 notwithstanding the fact that the assessee has sold its business of textile mills and had ceased carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cloth in the assessment year 1964-65 ?' 2. The facts leading to the present reference briefly stated are as under : The assessee is a private limited company which carries on business of manufacture and sale of cloth. During the assessment year 1969-70, it disclosed income from business. The assessee claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from the earlier assessment year against the income computed for the assessment year in question. The Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Leena A. Sarabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Guj)10; [1988]171ITR86(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee, an individual, had income from dividends as sole beneficiary of certain trusts. She and the trusts of which she was the sole beneficiary contributed the shares to M/s. Kalpana, a partnership, after converting the said capital into stock-in-trade. She and the trusts thus contributed various shares of companies as capital contribution to the said firm. The entries were made in the books of account of the assessee to the effect that the said shares were converted into stock-in-trade. The Income-tax Officer held that the conversion was not proper as the said shares were not easily marketable. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the assessee had transferred her shares to the partnership of M/s. Kalpana within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had, therefore, made herself liable for capital gains tax which he levied as per the assessment order finalised by him. He took the same view in regard to the contribution made by the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »