Gujarat Court December 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.
Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR577; (1995)IIILLJ218Guj
Ravani, J.1. The petition is filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board and it is directed against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal inter alia holding that the workers engaged by the Contractors and who are working in the Thermal Power Station of the petitioner-Board at Ukai were employees of the Board and were also entitled to benefits such as weekly off, sick leave, casual leave, earned leave etc.2. A preliminary point was raised before the Tribunal. It was submitted that by demands Nos. 1 and 2, in substance it was prayed that the contract system of labour should be abolished and the workers employed by the contractors should be treated as regular employees of the Board, and should be entitled to all the benefits available to regular employees of the Board. Therefore it was contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the question of abolition of Contract labour in view of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Tribunal...
Akhil Bharat Pravas Co. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR442
G.N. Ray, C.J.1. In this Application made under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Regional Transport Officer on 9th of April, 1984 in Case No. 1252 of 1983 imposing an additional tax on the omnibus of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,560/- for the period 25th of July, 1983 to 31st July, 1983 and further additional tax of Rs. 4,420/- for the period 1st of August, 1983 to 20th of August, 1983 and also penalty at the rate of 25% of the additional tax amounting to Rs. 4,784/-. The petitioner also challenges the correctness of the order Annexure 'C-2' passed by the Appellate Authority under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 in Tax Appeal No. 5 of 1984, namely, the Director of Transport, Gujarat State, at Ahmedabad under Section 14 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. By the aforesaid order, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner. It appears th...
Maneklal Sakarchand Zaveri (Since Decd.) by His Heirs and Lrs. Mrs. Ur ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR454
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this Appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ('BPT Act' for short, hereinafter), the appellants have challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, in Revision Application No. 16 of 1971.2. In this appeal, a very short, but significant, question which has been raised for adjudication is, as to whether the Jain Derasar, known as 'Shri Shantinathji Jain Derasar' is a private temple or a public trust temple. With a view to appreciate the merits of this appeal to the present appeal, may be narrated, as the outset.3. A Jain temple known as 'Shri Shantinathji Jain Derasar' ('disputed temple' hereinafter for the sake of convenience and brevity), situated at Gopipura, in Oswal Mohalla, in the city of Surat and according to the case of appellants is a private family religious temple, established in S.Y. 1939 (1883 AD). The disputed temple property is registered, originally, with City Survey No. 1513, in Ward No. 1...
Mohmad HusaIn Chotumiya Shaikh Vs. Taraben Manilal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR585
K.G. Shah, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated July 17, 1989, passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmedabad, Rural at Mirzapur.on Exh. 57 in Civil Suit No. 263 of 1985 on his file. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has rejected Exh. 57 application filed by the revision petitioner (the plaintiff) for a permission to amend the plaint.2. The petitioner filed the suit against Manilal (since deceased) (Defendant No. 1) and Babulal respondent No. 5 herein (Defendant No. 2).3. In the plaint, the petitioner averred that since about 16 years, he is running the business of a flour factory in the suit premises. It is the case of the petitioner that he had taken the suit premises on lease from deceased Jaishanker, who was the original tenant in the premises. The petitioner averred that formerly he used to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 27/ - per month for the suit premises to Jaishanker, and since the death of Jaishanker, he has been paying the re...
Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. U.O.i.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(55)ELT467(Guj)
Shah, J.1. Petitioner, Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing portland cement which was controlled commodity at the relevant time. The dispute in the present petition is for the period from 1-10-75 to 22-12-75 with regard to the packing material i.e. gunny bags. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for determining the value of the excisable goods, the value of the gunny bags which are used as packing material is required to be excluded as the packing material (gunny bags) is of durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. Under the Cement Control Order, 1967, the Central Government fixed the price at which the producers were required to sell the cement, including the price of gunny bags. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that gunny bags were used as primary packing material for cement. However, it is sough...
Sakinabibi and anr. Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: 1992ACJ603; (1995)IIILLJ508Guj
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Commissioner for short, hereinafter), on 23 February 1982, in W.C. Case No. 3 of 1981. The appellants have thus invoked the provisions of Section 30, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. 2. In First Appeal No. 1718 of 1982, the appellants have challenged the refusal of the amount of penalty and interest under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation's Act, 1923 (Act for short, hereinafter). The appellant in First Appeal No, 1721 of 1982, has challenged the entire award. The appellants in First Appeal No. 1718 of 1982 are the original applicants and the appellant in First Appeal No 1721 of 1982 is the original opponent-employer, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation for short, hereinafter). The parties are hereinafter referred to as the original applicants and original opponent-employer-corporation, for the sake of convenience and brev...
Dattu Nathu Kudekar and anr. Vs. the National Insurance Company and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC8; 1991ACJ743; AIR1991Guj126; (1991)1GLR534
C.V. Jani, J.1. These 9 First Appeals Nos. 719/79 to 727/79 under Section 54 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arise out of the common judgment and Awards delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 148 / 78, 167/ 78, 267/ 78, 272/78, 300/78, 301/78, 305/78, 315/78 and 314/78 respectively.2. The 27 Special Civil Application Nos.1441/79, 1442/79, 1443/79, 1444/79, 1445/79, 1446/79, 1447/79, 1448/79, 1449/ 79, 1450/79, 1451/79, 1452/79, 1453/79, 1454/79, 1455/79, 1456/79, 1457/79, 1458/ 79, 1459/79, 1460/79, 1461/79, 1462/79, 1,463/179, 1464/79, 1465/79, 1466/79 and 1467,179 also have been filed by the same appellants against the same National Insurance Company and the claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 265/ 78, 266/ 78,'270/78, 273/78, 274/78 278/78, 299/78, 302/78, 303/78, 304/78, 306/ 78, 309/ 78, -310/78, 321/78, 322/78, 323/78, 325/78, 326/78, 311/78, 312/78, 313/78, 314/78, 316/78, 317/78, 318/78,...
Chemicoat Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC205; 1991LC503(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT371(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner Company, inter alia, carries on the business of metallizing and/or lacquering articles of plastics - all sorts, such as films or sheets of polyester, Cellulose acetate, Polyvinyl Chloride and Polyethylene. It is the say of the petitioner that it buys from the local market or imports polyester films and thereafter does the processing work of metallizing and/or lacquering the same. The petitioner purchases the polyester films from the market or imports the same after paying the necessary Excise duty or import duty. 2. It is the say of the petitioner that 'Stamping Foil' on which the respondents want to recover Excise duty on the basis of Tariff Item 68 is nothing but a polyester film which is metallized and lacquered and is given some colour with suitable dyes. After purchase of the polyester films they are fed into high vacuum metallizing machine where thin coating of aluminium is deposited on the films by condensation of aluminium vapour. Thereafter the ...
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Broach Vs. Punjabhai Narshibhai Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj161; (1991)1GLR482
S.D. Dave, J.1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of these 10 appeals arising out of the awards pronounced by the Ld. Assistant Judge, Broach dated 2510-1978, awarding the additional compensation in 10 L.A.R. Cases on his file.2. The following Table shows the First Appeal No., L.A. R. No., Survey No., and the area of the lands concerned (See table below)3. The facts and circumstances under which the present appeals arise may be noticed thus:4. The lands described in the above suit Table situated at Ankles war Town under the Ankles war Taluka of the Broach District came to be acquired for the public purpose, namely for the construction of the Southern Approach Road to the New Narmada Bridge near Zadeshwar.5. So far as the land comprises in L.A.R. No. 161/77 at Sr. No. 1 is concerned, the necessary Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 6-2-1975. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 11-2-78. So far as the lands pertaining...
Gujarat Water Supply and Severage Board, Gandhinagar Vs. Sundardas Huk ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj170; (1991)2GLR825
Kapadia, J.1. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the State of Gujarat against the common judgment and decrees passed in the Civil Suits Nos. 3001, 3010 and 3011 of 1972 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, on 1-4-1978.2. In Civil Suit No. 3001 of 1972 decree was passed in favours of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rupees 30,617/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on that amount from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and at the same rate and on the same amount from the date of decree till realisation. The defendant was ordered to bear its own costs and would bear the costs of the plaintiff to the extent the plaintiff has succeeded. The plaintiff was ordered to bear his costs to the extent he has failed.3. In Civil Suit No. 3010 of 1972 decree is passed in favours of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 27,744/- with six per cent interest on that amount from the date of the suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »