Gujarat Court September 1987 Judgments
B.R. Acharya and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR33
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The petitioners, who are Probation Officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700, have filed this petition claiming promotion to the higher post carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900, mainly on the ground that the officers junior to them are promoted to the higher post.2. It appears that in the Directorate of Social Defence, there is a common cadre of officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700, which cadre consists of Probation Officers under the Probation of Offenders Act and other posts. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Probation Officer on February 1, 1964 and petitioner No. 2 on January 7, 1963. Both the petitioners were later on confirmed in the said posts. There is another common cadre in the Directorate of Social Defence carrying pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 to which promotion is made from the lower common cadre in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700. There are about 10 posts carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 and they have been pooled together for the purpose of recruitment...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Vyas Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR67
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society named Taluka Panchayat Servant Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The petitioner challenges the fixation of price of land allotted to it. The land in question is situated within the urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad and it forms part of Survey No. 47(C)(P) of Thaltej. The price of the land has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 28 per sq. yd. This is challenged inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before fixing the price and that the same is unreasonable and arbitrary. The land was allotted to the petitioner-Society by the Collector, Ahmedabad City, as per order dated February 22, 1974. In the order it has been specifically mentioned that the amount of the price of the land shall be payable by the Society as may be prevailing on the date of the order. It is also mentioned in the order that the price shall be determined by the Consulting Surveyor to the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Jashvidyaben C. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Guj)239; [1988]172ITR680(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee, a married lady, resides with her husband in the latter's property in Ahmedabad. She has one property in her ownership which is occupied by her cousin free of rent. The assessee claimed that her said property should be considered as self-occupied and she should be permitted statutory deduction of Rs. 1.800 in computing the value of the property. This contention has been negatived by all the authorities below. That has given rise to the following question on which our opinion is sought : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 1,800 under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. After some discussion at the bar and after analysing the relevant provisions of law, Mr. Shah stated that having regard to the fact that the amount involved is Rs. 1,800 only, he does not press his claim in that behalf. Notwithstanding the concession made ...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal J. Vakharia Vs. Urban Land Tribunal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj135; (1988)1GLR205
ORDER1. Which is the starting point of limitation in cases wherein an order passed by -the Competent Authority is corrected under the provisions of S. 45 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976? This, in short, is the question which calls for examination and answer.2. The petitioner is holder of vacant land situated in the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. In respect of the land held by him, the petitioner filled in form under S. 6 of the Act and thereafter final statement under S. 9 of the Act was issued on Sept, 30, 1979. The petitioner in fact consented and thereafter the final statement was issued. In the find statement, instead of Survey No. 489, by mistake Survey No. 89 was mentioned. The mistake was corrected as per order dt. Feb, 24, 1984. The petitioner preferred, appeal under S. 33 of the Act on March 26, 1984. The petitioner contended that the appeal was within time because the starting point of limitation should be Feb,24, 1984 and not Sept, 30, 1979 when the...
Tag this Judgment!Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Thakore Pratapji Kacharaji and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR183
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 17 of 1987 pending before the learned JMFC, Sidhpur.2. On perusal of the complaint which is annexed as Annexure-A to the petition, it appears that the complaint was filed under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC as also under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is doing the business of selling cold drinks in the Court compound at Sidhpur. He was also keeping 'Thums Up' drink manufactured and supplied by the original accused present petitioners. It is also alleged that on 15th May, 1987 a customer asked for 'Thums Up' bottle which the complainant had purchased from the Garden Hindu Hotel who are the distributors of 'Thums Up' for Sidhpur vide bill No. 3332. When the complainant took the bottle of 'Thums Up' he fou...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Dashashrimali and Vanik JaIn Vidyarthi Bhuvan Trust, Rajkot Vs. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj181; (1988)1GLR427
ORDER1. The petitioner-Trust is a holder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. The petitioner applied under S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for exemption from operation of certain provisions of the Act. The application has been rejected. Hence the petition.2. Notice was ordered to be issued on Sept. 7, 1987 in view of the amendment sought by the petitioner in the petition. By amendment it was specifically averred that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order under S. 20 of the Act. However, it appears from the record of the case that the petitioner had made further written submissions on June 4, 1986. As mentioned in the written submissions, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard in person on May 28, 1986. Therefore, the contention sought to be raised by way of amendment of the petition that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard i...
Tag this Judgment!Kumudiniben. D. Chopda and ors. Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Guj11; (1988)1GLR266
ORDER1. Be a party to a device of frustrating the provision of a welfare legislation- (In this case the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976) deprive the society of legitimate share and make it nearly impossible to carry public housing scheme envisaged under the relevant provisions of law. Thereafter invoke the provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution and pray 'protect us and permit us to retain our illgotten fruits'. In such a situation not to exercise the powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution would amount to denial of any of the fundamental rights or any other rights of the petitioners? Further question arises why and for what purpose powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution are conferred upon the High Court and with what objects in view they are to be exercised?2. There are 31 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 7130 of 1985. while Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1986 is filed by one petitioner only, who is also respondent 3 in Special Civil Application...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Keshavlal Mehta and Etc. Vs. the Competent Authority and Depu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj162; (1988)1GLR558
ORDER1. Even in an appeal filed by a landholder, will it or will it not be open to the Appellate Authority exercising powers under S. 33(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to remand a matter to the Competent Authority for deciding the same in accordance with law? Petitioners contend, phrase 'as it deems fit' will not take within its sweep the power to remand. The contention needs to be examined in the background of the relevant statutory provisions and the facts that follow.2. In all these petitions common questions of law and facts arise, the petitioners are holders of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot, to which the provisions of the Act are applicable.3. The petitioners had filled in forms under S. 6 of the Act. In response to the notice served together with the draft statement as provided under S. 8(3) of the Act, they submitted objections against the draft statement. Their forms were decided ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Gordhan Kadvabhai and ors. Vs. Competent Authority and Additiona ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR121
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Not the integrated whole of 'the person' but different disintegrated component parts of 'the person' be recognised as separate entity and he served with a show-cause notice and be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Such is the plea raised by the petitioners who are different component parts of 'an association of individuals' - a 'person'. Can such a plea be upheld?2. The petitioners, along with respondent No. 3, purchased a piece of vacant land situated within the Urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. The land admeasured about 13861 sq. m. It appears that the land was purchased some time in the year 1966 by a registered sale deed executed in favour of petitioners and respondent No. 3. After the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force, respondent No. 3 filled in form under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. In the form, it was declared that the form was filled in on behalf of himself and on behalf of the petitioners. In the facts and ci...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Govindji Kundliya and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj185; (1988)1GLR29
ORDER1. Petitioner 1 is the owner of land of part of Survey No. 451 of Rajkot admeasuring 8094 sq.mts. Petitioner 2 is a proposed housing co-operative society. The petitioners applied for exemption under S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the land owned by petitioner 1. The application for exemption has been rejected by the Government as per its order 4th April, 1986, produced at Annexure B to the petition. The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of this order.2. In respect of this very land, petitioners had obtained permission under S. 21 of the Act for constructing dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker section of the society. Even after obtaining the permission as stated above, the petitioners did not construct dwelling units for the weaker section of the society. However, the petitioners applied for exemption under S. 20 of the Act. In view of this factual position, it is observed i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »