Gujarat Court September 1989 Judgments
Bhupendrakumar Singhal Vs. P.R. Mehta and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj48; (1990)1GLR82
ORDER1. For the disciplinary action and punishment of dismissal removal or rustication of a student, whether the principles of natural justice should be observed or the fair play only will suffice, in case of the relationship of a pupil and the master of the education institution governed by the contract of admission and not by the statutory provisions? Whether such disciplinary authority is quasi judicial or only administrative authority? Whether the show cause notice containing the allegations against the pupil should be served before imposing penalty of rustication on the student? What should be the contents of such notice? Whether the order imposing the punishment should be speaking order? are some of the questions touching the students class and educational institutions, required to be considered in this petition under Art. 226, Constitution of India, challenging the order rusticating the petitioner from the Engineering College, for the period of three years and also dismissing hi...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Manishanker Trivedi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR168
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioners, the office bearers of Saurashtra University Affiliated Colleges Non-Teaching Staff Association, have challenged and prayed for quashing the Government Resolutions dated October 18, 1977, April 7, 1978, April 12, 1978 and March 5, 1979 as arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Ordinance No. 189 issued by the Saurashtra University and also for direction to the respondents not to compel the petitioners to exercise the option as per G.R. dated March 5, 1979, by which the petitioners are compelled to exercise the option to accept the pay scales and also for direction that the deeming fiction in the G.R. dated March 5, 1979 should not be considered as operative.2. The Saurashtra University is incorporated by the provisions of Section 3 of the Saurashtra University Act. Various Colleges are affiliated to the Saurashtra University and they are the Government Colleges as well as the Colleges run and managed by the Trust or registered Societies. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabhai M. Chemicals Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(29)ECC228; 1991LC794(Gujarat); 1995(76)ELT34(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner company is manufacturing 'sorbitol' which is liable to excise duty. The contention of the Excise Department is that it is covered by the Schedule wherein the goods liable to excise duty are mentioned. The contention of the petitioner company is that it is entitled to exemption of excise duty as per Notification No. 234/82, dated November 1, 1982 and Notification No. 234/86, dated April 3, 1986. The contention of the petitioner company is based on the ground that the aforesaid commodity is 'bulk drug' and irrespective of end-use of the same, it is entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty. As against this, it appears that the stand of the department is that unless the product is used for a particular purpose, i.e. for medicinal use, the manufacturer cannot claim exemption. 2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara and the Additional Collector of Central Excise have issued different show cause notices calling upon the petitioner compa...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala Vs. S.M. Ajbanj, Recovery Office and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR67; [1990]182ITR413(Guj)
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Rule : Mr. R. P. Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. 2. By consent of the parties, this special civil application is taken up for final hearing and arguments were heard. This special civil application is to quash and set aside the mere show cause notive issued under rule 73 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act whereby the petitioner is called upon to show cause as to why a warrant of arrest should not be issued. The said notice is at annexure 'A' to the special civil application. There are further prayers to the effect that to quash and set aside the demand notice dated April 3, 1989, demanding payment of Rs. 10,50,952 plus costs and interest and the same is at annexure 'B' to the special civil application; that to quash and set aside the notice of demand to defaulter bearing No. TRO-IV/121/A/88 dated May 31, 1988, issued by the Tax Recovery Officer under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act dated May 31, 1988, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Shardulbhai Lakhmanbhai Pancholi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1275; (1989)2GLR666(GJ)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Whether an accused person has an absolute right to be released on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (new Code' for short) even after submission of the police report/chargesheet ('chargesheet' for short), if the chargesheet has been submitted after the period prescribed in the said proviso, is the question which we are called upon to answer in this application.2. Petitioners are alleged to have been involved in an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) for committing murder of one Shepha Nagji. It is the prosecution case that on November 17, 1988, at about 5-30 p.m. at village Ugalwan, the petitioners entered the house of the deceased Shepha Nagji and caused him injuries with Dharia and axe. Chakur Nagji, who later on lodged the information at Nota Kuntwada police station relating to the commission of the said offence, was also injured by the petitioners wit...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhatbhai Kamabhai Miatra Vs. District Superintendent of Police and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)2GLR983
P.K. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 328 of 1988. The appellant herein had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of suspension dated 29-12-1987 which was annexed as Annexure 'A' to the special civil application by declaring it as illegal. By the said impugned order the appellant herein was put under suspension from the date of receipt of the said impugned order owing to the fact that an offence has been registered against him in Jamnagar ACB Police Station as Crime No. 4 of 1987 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act while he was working as Police Constable in Police Station, Jamnagar. It is also clear from the record that as early as 12-12-1987, i.e., before passing of the impugned order on 29-12-1987, the appellant was transferred from Jamnagar Di...
Tag this Judgment!Dinker V. Trivedi Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC438; 1990LC285(Gujarat); 1991(51)ELT267(Guj); (1989)2GLR704
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner is an Importer and Dealer in books and he apprehends that if and when he imports books of an age exceeding 100 years, it would be subjected to 100% customs duty under Heading No. 97.06 of the Customs Tariff Act and would not be classified as printed books under Heading No. 49.01 where it is duty free. The two relevant Heading reads as follows :- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Heading No. Sub-heading Description of Rate of DutyNo. article ---------------------------Standard PreferenitialAreas-----------------------------------------------------------------------------49.01 Printed books,brochures, leafletsand similar printedmatter, whether ornot in single sheet.4901.10 - In single sheet, Free ..whether or notfolded.Other :4901.91 - Dictionaries and Free ..encyclopedias, andserial installmentsthereof.4901.99 - Other Free ..97.06 9706.00 Antiques of an age 100% ..exceeding one hundredyears.----------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Ramtirath Yadav Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1834; (1990)1GLR104
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This matter was heard at the admission stage at length on several days and with the consent of the parties, it was treated as final hearing. We, therefore, issue rule.Mr. G. D. Bhatt, learned Addl. P. P., waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.2. The petitioner has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application for the purpose of issuing a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus, declaring the detention of the petitioner as illegal. There are further prayers to the effect that the petitioner should be released on bail with necessary terms and conditions and that the Designated Judge, before whom the case of the petitioner is pending, should be directed to proceed forthwith without any delay.3. The petitioner (accused No. 29) is one of the accused among the 63 accused committed to the Court of Designated Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, under the Terrorist and Disruptiv...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(27)ECC197; 1993(66)ELT162(Guj); (1990)1GLR346
ORDERRavani, J.1. Is there no dividing line between 'can' and should' If there is, are we (i.e., the High Court) not under Constitutional obligation to maintain the same As we also 'can' should we Or, because other can, we should not Such are the questions which have surfaced in this petition invoking exercise of powers under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner-Company is manufacturing soda ash and certain other articles. It imported coming coal from Australia. As per the relevant provisions of the statute and the notifications governing import of coking coal, if the ash content in coking coal is below 12%, the importer would be entitled to exemption from payment of import duty. The petitioner had imposed coking coal by five different consignments. In four consignments the ash content of the coking coal was within the permissible limit, i.e., below 12%. However, in one of the consignments, the ash content of coking coal was 12%. Hence the Department issued show...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(29)ECC232; 1991LC301(Gujarat); 1993(66)ELT193(Guj); (1990)2GLR759
ORDERRavani, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of processing Art Silk Fabrics after purchasing gray fabric from the market. Petitioner No. 2 is a partner of petitioner No. 1-firm. The petitioner firm cleared the manufactured fabrics on payment of duty calculated on the basis of value declared under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On scrutiny of the relevant record, it was found by the department that the entire sale was made by petitioner No. 1 firm to M/s. Saraswati Silk Mills which in turn sold goods in the market. Therefore the department held that the entire sale was made by petitioner No. 1 firm to M/s. Saraswati Silk Mills which in turn sold goods in the market. Therefore the department held that the price charged by M/s. Saraswati Silk Mills while selling the same to dealers was the correct market price for the purpose of assessment and levy of the duty. The petitioner agreed to make the payment of the duty on the bas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »