Gujarat Court November 1990 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.
Jasaraj Jethamal Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC72; 1991LC755(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT31(Guj); (1991)1GLR289
ORDER1. 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 Assistant Collector of Customs had issued notices demanding export duty in regard to the bills of raw wool which were exported by the shipping bills dated 26th June, 1973. In these petitions, it has been contended that as the shipping bills were presented on 26th June, 1973, no export duty was required to be paid by the petitioners. 2. In our view, the submission is without any substance in view of Section 16 of the Cust...
Ramanlal B. Jariwala Vs. District Magistrate, Surat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Guj38; (1992)1GLR46
Majmudar, J.1. This petition raises a short but interesting question as to whether the respondent-State of Gujarat and its authorities functioning under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977 are entitled to collect entertainment tax on charges levied at the petitioner's cinema theatre from the passengers who use the lift facility available at the theatre. The factual matrix leading to this petition may be looked at, at the outset.2. The petitioner is a partner of a duly registered partnership firm named Raman Brothers. They run a cinema house named Ratan Talkies at Shalabatpura locality in the Sutra city. The said cinema house is a part of a double decker threatre. One cinema house being Rupam talkies situated on the ground floor and petitioner's Ratan talkies being at a height of about 35 feet from the ground floor. The petitioner and his firm at the time of construction of the theatre made a provision for a lift to go to the upper deck that is at a height where Ratan talkies is sit...
N.D.D.B. Employees Union Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR410
Shah, J.1. National Dairy Development Board Employees' Union has filed this petition against the order dated December 18, 1989 (Annexure 'D') passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Baroda, refusing to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the workmen, who have raised the dispute, were workmen, who have raised the dispute, were workmen of the Contractors and not that of National Dairy Development Board, Anand The petitioner has prayed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to refer the aforesaid dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for decision under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act for the demands made in the letter dated January 3, 1989, which is produced at Annexure 'A'. The petitioner-Union demanded permanent grades and consequent revision of pay scales, as per the said demands. 2. In this petition, it has been submitted that the State Government or the Labour Commissioner was required to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, because the q...
Patel Bhagabhai Shamalbhai Vs. the Third Special Land Acquisition Offi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR613
C.V. Jani, J.1. These six First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arise from the common judgment and resultant awards delivered by the learned Assistant Judge, Narol, in three Land Acquisition Reference Cases in respect of acquisition of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 1299 situated in the outskirts of village Vavol, District Gandhinagar.1(1). First Appeals Nos. 801 and 804 of 1980 have been filed by the claimant Bhagabhai Shamalbhai and the Third Special Land Acquisition Officer, Capital Project, respectively against the award made in Land Acquisition Case No. 72 of 1978.1(2). First Appeals Nos. 802 and 805 of 1980 have been filed by the original claimant Naranbhai Shamalbhai and the Third Special Land Acquisition Officer, Capital Project, respectively, against the award made in Land Acquisition Case No. 73 of 1978.1(3). First Appeals Nos. 803 and 806 of 1980 have been filed by the original claimant Somabhai Shamalbhai and the Third Special Land Acquisit...
Shankerbag Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Sarojben Maganbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj147
1. The appellant in this group of three appeals has invoked the aids of the provisions of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short, hereinafter).2. Since a group of these three appeals arise out of a common judgment and raise identical questions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The sole question which is posed for consideration before this Court in this group of three appeals is: whether an act of taking deposits by a co-operative society would be an act of business of the defendant co-operative society and, if yes, whether a notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act ('Act' for short, hereinafter), is mandatory?3. In order to appreciate the sole question raised before this Court in these three appeals, material facts may be stated, shortly, at the outset.4. The appellant in all these three appeals is original defendant No. 1 against whom respondent No. 1 in all these ap...
Kamlesh Corporation and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1992(38)LC530(Gujarat)
M.B. Shah, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Kamlesh Corporation, which is a partnership concern, has filed this petition wherein it is prayed that the show cause notice dated 24th November 1976 which is at Annexure 'B' issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range IX, Division I, the order dated 2nd August, 1977 (Annexure 'D') passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division I, Ahmedabad, and the order dated 17th July 1979 (Annex. 'B') passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Bombay, be quashed and set aside.2. The dispute in this petition is whether item High Density Polythylene Tapes (HIP sacks) manufactured by the petitioner falling under Central Excise Tariff item No. 18 were exempted from payment of excise duty under notification No. 164/72 dated 10th July 1972.3. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has decided the matter holding that HIPE tapes were no...
Natwar Singh Vs. Niranjanbhai Kanti Lal Shah Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC342
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'Act' for short), the appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Bhavnagar 10.8.1982, in an application for compensation being workman compensation Application No. 10 of 1982.2. Various interesting points are raised and a multi prolonged attack is also made against the claim of compensation. Therefore, the appeal was heard at a marathon length. Since various significant points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merits of the present appeal and challenge against it, it would be pertinent at this juncture to set out relevant and material facts.3. The present appellant is the original claimant who preferred an application for compensation for personal injuries sustained by him, under Section 3 of the Act. The claimant made the application for compensation of Rs. 3528/- under...
Natwarsinh A. Chauhan Vs. Niranjanbhai K. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ904; (1991)1GLR361; (1993)IIILLJ611Guj
Bhatt, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'Act' for short), the appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Bhavnagar, on 10.8.1982, in an application for compensation being Workmen Compensation Application No. 10 of 1982. Various interesting points are raised and a multi prolonged attack is also made against the claim of compensation. Therefore, the appeal was heard at a marathon length. Since various significant points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merits of the present appeal and challenge against it, it would be pertinent at this juncture to set out relevant and material facts. 2. The present appellant is the original claimant who preferred an application for compensation for personal injuries sustained by him, under Section 3 of the Act. The claimant made the application for compensation of Rs. 3528/-unde...
Suresh Haribhai Marathi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR296
J.U. Mehta, J.1. Leave to amend.The petitioner has challenged the order of externment passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City on 3-10-1989, under the provision of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, externing the petitioner from City of Surat and other contiguous districts for a period of two years. The petitioner had challenged the said order before the appellate authority. That the appellate authority, after hearing the petitioner, rejected the appeal by an order dated 18-1-1990 which is at Annexure 'C'. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the aforesaid orders.2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that in the present case the petitioner had been acquitted in Mahidharpura Police Station Crime Register No. 305 of 1987, for offences punishable under Sections 324, 302, 114 of I.P.C. However, the said incident and the case has been taken into consideration by the externing authority in the s...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunderbai Ramji and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: 1992ACJ907; (1999)IIILLJ265Guj
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short, hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter) in Workman Compensation Application No. 32 of 1980, directing the opponents to pay an amount of compensation of Rs. 19,200/-.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal need narration at the outset so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal and the challenge against the same.3. The present appellant is the original opponent No. 3, present Respondent No. 1 is the original applicant, present Respondent No. 2 is the original opponent No. 1 and present Respondent No. 3 is the original opponent No. 2, who are hereinafter referred to as original opponent No. 3, the applicant and opponent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for the sake of convenience and brevity.4. The applicant filed an application under the provisions of Section 3 of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »