Gujarat Court November 1990 Judgments
Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: (1992)1GLR28
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., has filed this petition as its claim for exemption from levy of electricity duty as contemplated by Section 3(2)(vii)(b) of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 with respect to the new machineries and kiln installed by it in the year 1969-70 has been rejected by the authorities.2. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing Portland Cement. It installed a cement manufacturing plant first time in the year 1960. It has capacity of producing 660 M. Tonnes of clinker per day. The petitioner added one more kiln in 1965 and increased its production capacity by 1,000 M. Tonnes. In order to meet with growing demand for cement the petitioner decided to instal one more independent and viable plant capable of producing 1,000 M. Tonnes of clinker per day. Erection of a building for that purpose and installation of machinery was completed by about August, 1969. This time the petitioner installed a ne...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Salt and Chemical Industries (Mundra Kutch) Ltd. and anr. Vs. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR510
B. Majmudar, J.1. In the these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners of the respective petitions who are carrying on the industry of manufacturing salt in the leased lands situated in different Talukas of Kutch District have brought in challenge the action of the respondent authorities in seeking to levy Education Cess on the leased lands under the provisions of the Gujarat Education Cess Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners contend that the respondent authorities have no power to levy education cess on these lands under the Act. In order to highlight the grievances of the petitioners' it is necessary to note a fex introductory facts leading to these petitions.2. Facts leading to Special Civil Application No. 1229 of 1980:Petitioner No. 1-M/s. Bharat Salt and Chemical Industries (Mundra-Kutch) Ltd., is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is carrying on the business of manufacture, storage and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT30(Guj); (1991)1GLR498
Shah, J.1. This Special Civil Application is filed by the petitioner Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited which is an incorporated Company under the Companies Act for a declaration that the 'steam' generated by the petitioner and shared by the four contributing units is not liable to excise duty under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is also prayed that the order dated 3rd April, 1980 (Annexure 'K') passed by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, be quashed and set aside. With regard to the other prayers ('B') & (C) of paragraph 36, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not pressed them. 2. It is contended by the learned Advocate General for the petitioner that the steam generated by the petitioner was not 'goods' as understood in the Excise Law within the meaning of Entry 68 which requires that on all other goods, not elsewhere specified manufactured in a factory, rate of duty is 1% ad valorem. He further cont...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Haider Balech Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT59(Guj)
A.N. Divecha, J. 1. Is making of a representation against detention as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India an idle or empty formality so that consideration thereof can brook undue delay This is one of the several questions raised before us in support of this Writ Petition preferred by the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his detention by an order passed on 31st January, 1990 by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (the COFEPOSA for brief). Its copy is annexed as Annexure 'B' to this petition. 2. The petitioner was served with the order of detention at Annexure 'B' on 6th February, 1990. He was also supplied with the grounds of detention on that very day. A copy thereof is as Annexure 'B-1'. A declaration was also issued under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA on 12th March 1990. Its copy is as Annexure 'C'. The detenu made his representation on 29th ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Dhana-dal Industries Vs. General Manager and Dy. Industries Comm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR563
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. A short question arises for resolution in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is with reference to the Sales Tax exemption in connection with Dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner-Industry. The petitioner contends that as per the exemption Notification Annexure A/2, Entry 118, the petitioner-Industry is entitled to the said exemption while the revenue contends that the petitioner-Industry is covered by exceptional clause and is listed as one of the industries which will not earn the said exemption as it is a spice mill. Consequently the moot question which will decide the fate of this petition is whether Dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner is a spice. A few relevant facts leading to this controversy may now be noted.2. The petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932; registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and it is also registered under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The business of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: 1992(37)ECC79; 1991LC532(Gujarat)
M.B. Shah, J.1. This Special Civil Application is filed by Satellite Engineering Limited, wherein it is contended that the petitioner-Company manufactures items such as aluminium terminals, brass terminals, glow lamps, bakelite disc, jets, float pins, rivettings and lugs. The said items fall within the purview of residuary tariff item 68. In exercise of powers conferred under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government has issued notification dated 18th June, 1977, which was amended by Notification dated 15th July, 1977, whereby it has granted exemption to goods falling under item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and cleared for home consumption on or after the first day of April in any financial year, by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon if certain conditions laid down therein are satisfied. The said notification is produced at Annexu...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal and Co. Vs. Garasia Rajvirba Udesinh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1992ACJ286; [1991(63)FLR709]; (1991)2GLR726; (1993)IIILLJ235Guj
Bhatt, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and award of learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter) at Rajkot, in W.C.(F) Application No. 4 and 5 of 1978. The aforesaid two applications for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short, hereinafter), came to be disposed of on 19.1.1980.2. The appellant in both the appeals, is the original opponent No. 3, in both the W.C.(F) Applications. In First Appeal No. 1386 of 1980, original opponent No. In W.C.(F) Application No. 5 of 1978 is the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original applicants, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the original opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are the original opponent Nos. 5 to 10, as such, who are not necessary parties in the present appeal.3. In First Appeal No. 1369 of 1980, the appellant is the original opponent No. 3 in W.C.(F) Application No. 4 of 1978, respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Jasraj Jethamal Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1994(74)ELT819(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. In these petitions, the question which requires determination is whether export duty leviable under the Notification issued on 26th June 1973 and published in Extraordinary Gazette dated 26th June 1973 could be levied on goods in respect of which shipping bills had been submitted on the same day, i.e. 26th June 1973, which were verified by the Customs Authorities and were cleared for transport on that day.2. It is an admitted fact that the Central Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, has issued a Notification, whereby for 'raw wool', 25% ad valorem export duty was fixed. It is the case of the petitioners in these petitions that shipping bills were presented before the proper Officer on 26th June 1973 and as no export duty was payable on the export of goods covered by the shipping bills, the concerned Officer accepted the same and the goods were allowed clearance by him for export. Thereafter, the Assi...
Tag this Judgment!Mangubhai Mansukhram Pandya and anr. Vs. Pranjivan Tribhovandas Purohi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Guj1
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), at Baroda, in Special Civil Suit No. 312 of 1972, on 30-12-1975. Thus, the plaintiffs have invoked the aids of the provisions of S. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short, hereinafter) and have, now, come up before this Court by way of this appeal.2. The facts' giving rise to the present appeal may be, shortly, stated at the out set. The present appellants are the original -plaintiffs who instituted the above suit for recovery of Rs. 13,810/- from the present respondent/ original defendant on the basis of nine pronotes.3. The appellants who are the original plaintiffs, inter alia, contended by filing the above suit that they had advanced a sum of Rs. 13,810/- to the respondent, who is the original defendant, for his contract work on different dates, on the basis of pronotes. The original defendant had executed nine pronotes as follows:Sr.No. Date Amount (Rs.)1. 11-12-1969 1, 0...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal and Company Vs. Garasia Rajvirba Udesinh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC696
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and award of learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter) at Rajkot, in W.C.(F) Applications No. 4 and 5 of 1978. The aforesaid two applications for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short, hereinafter), came to be disposed of, on 19.1.1980.2. The appellant, in both the appeals, is the original opponent No. 3, in both the W.C.(F) Applications. In First Appeal No. 1386 of 1980, original opponent No. 3 in W.C.(F) Application No. 5 of 1978 is the appellant, respondents No. 1 and 2 are the original applicants, respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 are the original opponents No. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents No. 5 to 10 are the original opponents No. 5 to 10, as such, who are not necessary parties in the present appeal.3. In First Appeal No. 1369 of 1980, the appellant is the original opponent No. 3 in W.C.(F) Application No. 4 of 1978, re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »