Gujarat Court May 1990 Judgments

Sida Nitinkumar Laxmankumar Laxmanbhai and anr. Vs. Gujarat University ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: AIR1991Guj43; (1990)2GLR808

ORDER1. Can something which has been conferred by way of substantial rights be taken away by adopting the procedure which has no roots in any of the provisions of law? This, in short, is the question at the centre of controversy raised in this petition by two students who belong to socially and educationally Backward Class and who wish to assert their fundamental rights as to equality before law.2. The petitioners belong to socially and educationally backward class of communities. They are candidates for admission to post-graduate medical courses. Petitioner No. 1 is denied to assert his claim for a seat which may be available to him in unreserved category of seats, while petitioner No. 2 is denied to assert his claim for reserved category of seats. The respondent-University contends that both the students had at the commencement of the interviews exercised their choice and now they cannot be permitted to shift their stand. Specifically with regard to petitioner No. I it is contended t...

Consumer Education and Research Society Vs. Canara Bank

Court: Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad

S.A. Shah, President (1) A very important question which will affect the interest of the consumers has arisen before us as to whether a consumer can file a petition of complaint against a Corporation which is carrying on its business in the local limits of Gujarat but whose sole or principal office is situated outside the State limits coupled with the fact that cause of action has not arisen within the territory of State of Gujarat. Had this question arisen before the Civil Court, the answer would have been simple taking recourse to explanation to Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code') which provides; "A Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or" One cannot dispute that in view of Clause (a) of Section 20, a suit can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of...

J.B. Kharwar Sons Vs. Union of India

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 1992(61)ELT58(Guj)

G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are engaged in the business of processing cotton and man-made fabrics. They have filed these petitions for appropriate write, order or direction directing the excise authorities to reassess the assessable value of the processed fabrics and to grant refund with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the excise duty collected by them. 2. Now it is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that while arriving at assessable value of the processed fabrics, trader's profit is required to be excluded. It is the petitioner's case and not in dispute now that the assessable value has been determined by the excise authorities after including the trader's profit. It would, therefore, be necessary now to direct the excise authorities to reassess the value of the processed fabrics in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints & Ors. v. Union of India 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 read with 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.), and refund tha...

Kirtisinh G. Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1990)2GLR1278

N.B. Patel, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated the 26th March, 1990 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2557 of 1990 whereby he has summarily rejected the said Special Civil Application.2. In the Special Civil Application the relevant relief claimed by the appellant was for the issuance of an appropriate writ, Direction or Order quashing and setting aside the decision and order dated the 5th March, 1990 of the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State confirming the order dated the 11th January, 1990 passed by the Collector of Surendranagar. By the order dated the 11th January, 1990 the Collector had declared that the appellant was disabled from continuing as a Member and President to the Wadhwan Municipality inasmuch as the appellant was professionally interested or engaged in a case against the Municipality during the term for which he was elected as a Member of the Municipality.3. Shortly the facts of the...

Kwality Silk Mills Vs. Union of India

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 1991LC418(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT242(Guj)

G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The petitioners in these petitions are engaged in the business of processing cotton and man-made fabrics. They have filed these petitions for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the excise authorities to reassess the assessable value of the processed fabrics and to grant refund with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the excise duty collected by them. 2. Now it is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that while arriving at the assessable value of the processed fabrics, trader's profit is required to be excluded. It is the petitioner's case and not in dispute now that the assessable value has been determined by the excise authorities after including the trader's profit. It would, therefore be necessary now to direct the excise authorities to reassess the value of the processed fabrics in light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints and Ors. v. Union of India - 1988 (38) ELT 535 read with 1989 (39) ELT 493 and refund that amoun...

Shree Rama Packaging Vs. Union of India

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 1991(31)ECC461; 1991LC262(Gujarat); 1991(56)ELT15(Guj); (1990)2GLR1239

Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. J. D. Ajmera, learned Counsel, waive service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. The contention of the Petitioners, represented by Mr. Dave, is that the hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and the order was passed as regards the tariff heading by another Assistant Collector. Mr. Ajmera states that factually it is correct to say that hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and that the final order was passed by another Assistant Collector, changing tariff heading. Originally, the tariff heading was 39.26 and subsequently, it was changed to 39.20. If the tariff heading is 39.20, there will be a liability on the part of the petitioners to pay excise duty and if the tariff heading is 39.26, there will be an exemption from payment of excise duty. Inasmuch as Mr. Ajmera accepts on the factual aspects of the case, to the effect that the hearing was done by one Assistant Collector and the final order, changing the tariff heading, passed by anot...