Gujarat Court March 1991 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.
Todarmal Jiva Jadav Vs. Kandla Port Trust and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR1295; (1992)IILLJ477Guj
1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia challenged the action of the respondents in not giving him promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on the establishment of respondent No. 1 2. It would be quite proper to narrate a few facts giving rise to the present petition most of which are not in dispute between the parties. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No. 1 as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) on October 1, 1965. He was promoted as Executive Engineer on September 19, 1974. He got his further promotion as Superintending Engineer with effect from 21st August, 1988. He was placed on probation for a period of two years on the promotional post of Superintending Engineer. The Chief Engineer of respondent No. 1 retired from service with effect from August 31, 1989 (A. N.) presumably on his attaining the age of superanuation. The petitioner herein was thereupon required to discharge the current duties attached to the post of Ch...
State of Gujarat Vs. Gokaldas Trading Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: [1991]82STC248(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal has made this reference at the instance of the State of Gujarat under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. It has referred to us the following question for our decision : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the opponent's disputed sale of Cadbury's Bournvita was not a sale covered by the expression 'food-stuff and food provisions of all kinds' as used in entry 6 of Schedule III to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, but was covered by the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to that Act ?' 2. M/s. Gokaldas Trading Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the opponent') is a dealer registered under the Act. It wanted to know the rate of tax payable on the sales of an article sold in the market under the trade name of Bournvita. Therefore, it made an application under section 62 of the Act to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to determine the rate at which such sales were liable...
Natwarbhai Sakarabhai and ors. Vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj63
C.V. Jani, J.1. These seven appeals under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', arise out of a common judgment and different awards made by the learned Judge, Court No. 17, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Land Reference Cases Nos.50/79, 43/79, 44/79, 49/79, 51/7.9, 53/79 and 57/79 respectively.2. The lands under acquisition situated in Vadej were acquired for construction of houses by the Gujarat Housing Board. The notification under S. 4 of the Act dated 17-8-71 was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 2-9-197 1. It may be noted here that some other lands had already been acquired for this, very purpose under another notification under S. 4 of the Act published on 29-1-1970, but the lands involved in the present appeals had been left out. Notification under S. 6 was published in the Gazette on 25-7-1971. After issuing notices to the interested- persons and after hearing them under the relevant pro I visions of the Act, the Additional ...
Patel Talkies, Karjan and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR271
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Is it necessary that the appointment of prescribed officer under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977 by the State Government should be notified in the Official Gazette? In case notification as required under Section 11A(1)(b) of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977 is not published in the Official Gazette, what is the effect thereof? These are some of the questions which arise in this petition.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. The firm is the owner of a cinema theatre at Karjan which was visited by the Inspector of Entertainment Tax. In connection with the irregularities noticed by him, a show-cause notice was issued by the Mamlatdar, Baroda. After hearing the parties, he came to the conclusion that there was evasion of Entertainment Tax. He also held the petitioners guilty and assessed the amount of tax and imposed penalty as mentioned hereinbelow:Rs. 37,573-30: Tax assessedRs. 53,359-95: Amount of one and a h...
Wigman Electrical Eng. Ind. P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT447(Guj); (1991)2GLR1081
Shah, J.1. In these petitions the vires of sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. 2. Section 11B reads as under :- '11B. Claim for refund of duty. - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date : Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. (2) If on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise paid by the applicant should be refunded to him, he may make an order accordingly. (3) Where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under this Act refund of any duty of excise becomes due to any person, the Assistant Collector of Central E...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. C.V. Pandor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR663]; (1991)2GLR771; (1993)ILLJ82Guj
G.N. Ray, C.J.1. Rule. Since Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel, is appearing for the 1st respondent, service of rule is waived. 2. By consent of the parties, the rule is taken up for final hearing. Respondent No. 1 Shri C. V. Pandor was an employee under the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. In connection with a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, he was placed under suspension and in such disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has taken a decision to dismiss the said Shri C. V. Pandor from service, but in view of the pendency of a proceeding before the Conciliation Officer, permission under S. 33 had been sought for, for imposing the proposed punishment of dismissal. It is the case of the petitioner that until the disposal of said application for according permission to the proposed punishment, the appropriate suspension allowance should be decided by the Conciliation Officer by fixing a time so that within the aforesaid period, t...
Miss Chaula Kuruwa Vs. Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR775
A.N. Divecha, J.1. By means of this petition the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of respondent No. 2 terminating her services by the order passed on 25th April, 1986. Its copy is at Annexure 'O' to the petition.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be summarised thus: The petitioner was appointed as a Lady Receptionist on 15th November, 1977 on the establishment of respondent No. 1. She was confirmed as such sometime in 1978. On 13th January, 1983 as advertisement was issued on behalf of respondent No. 1 inviting applications inter alia for the post of Assistant Publicity and Public Relations Officer. The petitioner submitted her application in response thereto. She appears to have successfully faced the interview taken by the committee constituted by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 for the purpose. By an order passed on 18th April, 1983 she came to be appointed as...
Nanavati Chemical Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC268; 1991LC25(Gujarat); 1991(56)ELT535(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is manufacturing Sodium Silicate. The petitioner claimed refund of excise duty of Rs. 24,940.22 ps. (Rs. 24,760.41 ps. as basic duty plus Rs. 179.81 ps. special duty). It was contended by the petitioner that the base period for fixing clearance was year 1975-76 and the petitioner started manufacturing from May 1977. Therefore the clearance during 1976-77 was nil and hence for the clearance made during May 14, 1977 to March 31, 1978, petitioner claimed refund of the amount of extra duty paid on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to claim the benefits of exemption Notification No. 198/76, dated June 16, 1976. 2. The petitioner preferred the claim for refund on April 2, 1979. The said claim has been rejected by the Assistant Collector concerned as per order dated July 26, 1979. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Collector and has claimed that the respondents be directed to pay the...
Gani Ali Vs. Savabai Gani and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: I(1993)DMC238; (1993)1GLR88
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Whether the learned Magistrate is bound to hold inquiry in every case when a person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him as par the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of 125 Cr. P.C. 1973 If yes, the second question is, in proceedings initiated by wife for the recovery of the maintenance allowance, the learned Magistrate is required to hold the inquiry 2. Mr. Shah learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised a contention before ice that before passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has not made any inquiry as contemplated under second proviso of Section 125(3) Cr. P.C inasmuch as the learned-Magistrate has not called upon the wife to ascertain her with that she if willing to go and stay with her husband or not when the petitioner has offered to maintain his wife on the condition that she should live with him. Therefore, the impugned order pared by the learned Magistrate is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his ...
Maharaoshri Madansinhji Vijayarajji Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR129
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Annexure 'C to the petition on August 6, 1979. In this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the constitutionality of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The maiter was placed for admission and the Division Bench has admitted the same by issuing rule thereon on November 30, 1979. Notice as to interim relief was issued and after hearing the parties interim relief in terms of para 13(iii) was also granted. Today the matter was called out for final hearing.2. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. C.H. Vora has specifically given up the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider the said question.3. Before going to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state few facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the controversy rais...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »