Gujarat Court February 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC129; (1988)1GLR516
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Rule. Mrs. Mehta waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent heard to-day.2. By the impugned show cause notice dated 15th January, 1987 the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda, has called upon the petitioner to show cause why the duty of excise for the period from 1st January, 1981 to 30th November, 1986 amounting to Rs. 73,49,298-89 ps. not paid by them on the losses of synthesis gas/ammonia should not be recovered from them and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Sub-rule (1) of Rule-173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This notice has been issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda. The notice is challenged on several grounds, one of which is that the Superintendent had no power or authority to issue the notice which covers a period exceeding six months in view of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act').3. Section ...
Bhikhabhai Rambhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj268; (1988)1GLR510
Gokulakrisiinan, C.J. 1. Leave to amend as prayed for to add three more petitioners is granted.2.This Special Civil Application is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the impugned notice at Annexure-A and also for restraining respondents 2 and 3 from occupying the said land in question. The State of Gujarat, invoking S. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, wanted to acquire the strip of land, the details of which are given hereunder, temporarily for the purpose of having a road to approach the O.N.G.C. well, shown in the plan now submitted by the respondents : 3. The main contentions of Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, are that there is no public purpose for acquiring these survey numbers inasmuch as the respondents have already taken possession of different survey numbers only last year for the purpose of having a road from the main road and inasmuch as there is already a cart-track in exi...
ishwarbhai Mulchanddas Modi Vs. Vadnagar Nagrik Coop. Bank Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR136]; (1988)1GLR507; (1988)IILLJ367Guj
Ahmadi, J. 1. The petitioner, a peon in the respondent-Bank, came to be dismissed from service on 9th December, 1983 under Standing Order framed in pursuance of Entry 10 in Schedule I of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On the terminations of his employment, he made an application to the employer under Section 42(4) read with Rules 53(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations (Gujarat) Rules, 1961. The application to the employer was made on the very next day and must have been received by the employer in normal course within a day or two thereafter. No agreement was arrived at between the employer and the employee within fifteen days from the receipt of the application by the employer as required by Rule 53(2) of the said Rules. The petitioner thereafter fixed an application in the Labour Court on 15th May, 1984 challenging the legality and propriety of the order of termination passed by the employer under the Standing Orders. The Labour C...
Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1945; (1988)2GLR199
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has been concurrently found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. for causing death of a ten year old girl by rash and negligent act of driving a motor bus. He-has been awarded R.I, for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for two months.2. This matter was argued at length by the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.M. Shah. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2277 of 1987 through Advocate Mr. H. M. Chinoy and that application is really speaking an application in support of the revision application elaborating grounds and arguments. There is no independent or substantive prayer which is not covered by the revision application. Therefore, both these applications are heard and disposed of together.3. The incident had occurred on 28-2-1984 in the afternoon at about 5-00 p.m. on the National Highway between Ahmedabad and Baroda on the outskirt of village Boriyavi. The acc...
Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi Vs. State of Gujrat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC383; (1988)2GLR995
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has been concurrently found guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code for causing death of a ten-year-old girl by rash and negligent act of driving a motor bus. He has been awarded R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for two months.2. This matter was argued at length by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.M. Shah. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2277 of 1987 through advocate Mr H.M. Chinoy and that application is really speaking an application in support of the revision application elaborating grounds and arguments. There is no independent or substantive prayer which is not covered by the revision application. Therefore, both these applications are heard and disposed of together.3. The incident had occurred on 28 2-1984 in the afternoon at about 5.00 p.m. on the National Highway between Ahmedabad and Baroda on the outskirts of village Boriyavi. T...
Gujarat Electricity Board, Vadodara Vs. Kantilal Rajabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj261; (1988)2GLR1500
1. Even when it is found that the meter was not tampered with, it was proper and reasonable for the G.E.B. not to restore the electric connection immediately. Was the delay of about three months in restoration of electric connection justified Is it not necessary that the superior officers of the Board be little more vigilant and try to minimise the hardships of petty consumers who are generally at the mercy of junior officers and other employees of the Board at the lower levels ?2. The learned counsel for the appellant was told that if he does not have sufficient record with him he is at liberty to ask for adjournment. He fairly stated that for the purpose of arguing the matter he had sufficient papers with him and he did not want adjournment on that ground. I have gone through the judgment of the lower court and heard the learned counsel for the appellant, on all the points urged by him.3. The respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant-board for recovery of Rs. 2...
Gujarat Re-Rolling Mills' Association and etc. etc. Vs. State of Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj51; (1988)1GLR344
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. in all these Special Civil Applications, a common question as to the interpretation of S. 2(ee) in relation to S. 2(bb) of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 arises. If the undertaking of the petitioners herein comes under the category of industrial undertaking, lesser duty is leviable on the consumption of electricity, while if they are service undertaking, higher electricity duty is leviable. Some of these Special Civil Applications have been filed directly after the demand was made for the payment of duty treating the undertaking as service undertaking. some of these special civil applications have been filed after the first authority h as found that these undertakings are service undertakings and some of the Special Civil Applications have been filed after the appellate authority has found that the undertakings are the service undertakings.2. The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel Mr. K. S. Nanavati, the learned Counsel Mr. S, 1. Nanavati a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›