Gujarat Court July 1988 Judgments
Union of India Vs. Wood Papers Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT189(Guj); (1989)2GLR1323
Ravani, J.1. Leaving aside gloss, the plaintiffs, in short, claim, 'we have committed mistake. We were ignorant of law. Had we known the law, we would not have paid the amount of tax recovered by you. No matter, we ourselves have not suffered the burden of tax. But the amount of tax has reached to the State Coffers through our hands. Therefore refund the amount of tax to us.' In response to such claim, question arises whether allowing the claim would or would not amount to permitting the plaintiffs to fleece the pocket of the people i.e. unidentifiable and innumerable unwary consumers who suffered the burden of tax Can such claim be allowed Let us examine the claim and the question posed. 2. The respondents are original plaintiffs. Respondent No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, and respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director thereof. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of manufacturing straw-boards, duplex boards, packing and wrapping papers and such other mater...
Tag this Judgment!Devjibhai B. Chudasama and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj22; (1988)2GLR1339
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Notice was issued as early as on 18th Feb., 1988 and in response we have heard the arguments of all these Counsel appearing for the respective parties and read the affidavits filed by the parties.2. This special civil application is to quash and set aside the notification issued by Respondent No. I dated 16-1-1988 which is annexure 'F' to the special civil application. The said notification was issued in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Area Development Authority. Veraval-Patan Joint Municipality and the new Town Planning Committee. The notification inter alia states that Veraval-Patan Samyuktha Nagar Palika has prepared a draft. revised development plan under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and advertised the said revised development plan and called objections and on the proposed draft revised development plan by publishing the same in Part 11 of the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 12th Sept., 1985. It f...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal R. Agraval Vs. the Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj220; (1989)1GLR163
P. R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. This Special Civil Application is to declare R. 2 of 'the General Rules & Directions for the Guidance of Contractor', being condition No. 2 regarding the cash security deposit, in the alternative, Bank Guarantee or the Fixed Deposit, is illegal, ultra vireos and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. There is a further prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents not to cash the Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 726464 dt. 2-1-1988 with the Bank of Baroda, Ukai for Rs. 10,54,200/- which is accepted by them as security deposit. There is a further direction praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent 3 not to cash the said Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of the Gujarat Electricity Board.2. Notice of Motion was given in this case with ad interim relief as early as 22-4-1983. In response to the same, Counsel for the 1st respondent, Mr. B. C. Patel filed affidavit-in reply. To this affidavit- in-reply, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivanbhai Motirai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR283
R.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions challenge the same land acquisition of two different survey members. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on 30-1-1986 on the ground that the lands mentioned therein were likely to be needed for public purpose namely for increasing the refining capacity of Gujarat Refinery and its allied services. Large number of survey numbers totalling to about 126 Acres of land were notified including Survey Nos. 72/1 and 73/1 (Acres 2-27 gunthas) belonging to these two petitioners admeasuring 66 Ares 77 sq. mts. and 37 Ares 43 sq. mts. respectively. After conducting enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and after considering report under Section 5A, the Government of Gujarat issued Section 6 notification on 5-6-1986 notifying the entire land of 126 Acres notified under Section 4 as likely to be needed for the public purpose. In the same notification, it was also stated that the requisiti...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwantlal A. Patel Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR608; [1989]179ITR164(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Though labelled as first appeal in fact and in substance that is a second appeal under the provisions of section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inasmuch as the first appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is provided under section 269G of the Act. Second appeal before the High Court can be filed only on a question of law. The appellant-vendor having failed before the lower authority has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant-vendor agreed to sell certain rights and interest in the property in question by an agreement dated April 22, 1933. The sale deed was effected on September 20, 1983, in which consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs was shown. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner received Form No. 37G from from the Sub-registrar concerned. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer, who, we are told, is the statutory authority to deal with the valuatio of the properties and is attached to the Income-tax Department. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner also c...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Lilavati and ors. Vs. Vallabhbhai Morarji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj156; (1989)1GLR67
1. Under what circumstances a consent decree passed against a minor can be avoided by the minor? Is it open to him to take up the contention that the next friend or the guardian ad litem who .represented him was negligent and therefore the decree passed against him should be set aside? If yes, what should be the degree of negligence or would it be sufficient to show negligence silmpliciter on the part of the next friend or guardian ad litem? These are some of the questions which have cropped up in this first appeal.2. The appellants-original plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that the property of Ward No, 6 of Surat own and registered at Nondh No. 1950 is ancestral property and that they have interest in the same by birth. They also prayed for declaration that they are in actual possession of the property and the consent decree passed in Special Suit No. 92 of 1968 (in which plaintiffs 2, 3, 4 and 5 were defendants and were represented by guardian ad litem appointed by...
Tag this Judgment!Pramodbhai Bhulabhai Desai Vs. Officer on Special Duty No. 2, (Land Ac ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj187; (1989)1GLR194
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. This special civil application is to quash the S. 4 Notification dt. 12th Oct., 1977 and S. 6 Notification dt. 18th Sept., 1980 on the ground that they are illegal, erroneous, mala fide, vitiated by non-compliance with the due procedure and provisions of the Ss. 8 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, In the alternative it is prayed for giving a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner compensation for the land actually used i.e. 1 1/2 acres and 7620 square metres on the basis of the current market price and compensate the petitioner for the losses that he has suffered with interest on the said amount of compensation at the current market rate, at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.2. Notice before admission was issued to the respondents and the respondents 1 and 3 are represented by Mr. D. H. Karia, learned counsel for the State and Respondent 2 is represented by the learned counsel Mr. A. H. Mehta. The Respondents have also filed reply af...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1295; (1989)ILLJ599Guj
Nanavati, J.1. This petition is filed by the Associated Cement Companies Limited (hereafter referred to as 'the A.C.C.') and one of its Directors and shareholders. The A.C.C. is having one of its factories at Porbandar and it is known as Porbandar Special Product Works (hereafter referred to as 'the PSP Works'). The principal activity of the PSP Works is to manufacture white cement, which is sold under the brand name 'Silvercrete'. The PSP Works started functioning in the year 1914. It started manufacturing white cement in 1959. There was considerable demand for the white cement manufactured by the PSP Works till 1984. M/s. J.K. Cements started manufacturing white cement in Rajasthan in that year. As the white cement manufactured by M/s. J.K. Cements is of greater whiteness and superior quality, demand for the white cement manufactured by the PSP Works declined. With the drop in the demand, over-all capacity utilisation of the PSP Works dropped from 72 per cent. in 1983-84 to 36.4 per ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikramsinh Pravinsinh Rana and Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1576; (1988)2GLR1336
J.P. Desai, J.1. Vikramsinh Pravinsinh Rana is the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 282 of 1988 while Dilipsinh Pravinsinh Rana is the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 283 of 1988. They have been detained by two different orders passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the PASA Act'), dated 8-2-1988 on ground that they are dangerous persons and their activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. These orders of detention as well as the continued detention of these two petitioners have been challenged by filing these two petitions raising several grounds of challenge. As one of the grounds of challenge, Much is common in both petitions has appealed to us, these two petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. As we are inclined to allow these two petitions only on one gro...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Kana Vs. Kana Tida Mokaria
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: 1989ACJ210; (1989)1GLR122; (1993)IIILLJ548Guj
Ravani, J. 1. Admit. Mr. A.H. Mehta, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. By consent of the parties the matter is ordered to be heard today.2. The appellant is a workman who has lost before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and hence preferred this appeal. It was his case that on May 26, 1984 while he was in employment of respondent No. 1 he was driving the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 and he met with an accident and received serious injuries; that he was receiving monthly wages of Rs. 1,000/- per month; that after the accidental injury he took treatment and even after the treatment he is suffering from permanent partial disability and therefore he is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. Respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company with which the truck in question was insured by respondent No. 1. The appellant-petitioner claimed Rs. 60,000/- as and by way of compensation and also claimed penalty to the extent of 50 per cent of the amount...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »