Gujarat Court May 1994 Judgments
Shreenarayan Kanaiyalal Vs. Anup Engineering Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR97; (1995)IILLJ960Guj
Mehta, J.1. The undisputed facts are simple and eloquent and the question involved as a short one. If an employer who has dismissed a workman without holding any inquiry, justified the dismissal by leading evidence before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, whether it will relate back to the date of dismissal order of the employer or will be operative from the date of award of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal In other words, whether in such a case, the workman will be entitled to wages till the award The present petitioner (a protected workman) and 21 other workman came to be dismissed from service by identical order dated April 20, 1991 (Annexure B to the petition). That order itself states that the workman is a representative of a Union and their demand dated January 7, 1991 were pending before the Conciliation Officer. It is alleged that during the pendency of the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, from 1st April, 1991, obstructions were created in production ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad Through the Municipal Commissioner ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj29; (1994)2GLR1325
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This group of Civil Applications has been referred to this Bench by a Division Bench (Coram: R.A. Mehta and R.D. Yyas JJ.) by its order dated 21st July 1992. Although the order of reference does not specifically set out the question(s) required to be considered by this Bench, it appears that the reference has been made since the referring Bench did not agree with the orders passed by some other Benches refusing to condone the delay, including orders passed by a Division Bench of C.V. Jani and R.K. Abichandani JJ. in Civil Application Nos. 587/90 dtd. 24-6-92, in Civil Application No. 539/90 (and the Group) dated 25-6-92 and in Civil Application No. 716/90 (and the Group) dated 26-6-1992.2. We have been taken through the earlier orders passed by the Bench of C.V. Jani and R.K. Abichandani JJ. and from a perusal of the same it appears to us that the same are orders or decisions based on the facts and merits of those cases. It does not appear to us that the rejection of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Sakarbai Devraj Vs. Ibrahim Abdul Ganibhai Pankhida
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1091
S.D. Dave, J.1. Amidst rival contentions and elaborate submissions, we find ourselves in a field which appears to be circumscribed. We perceive, we are in the arena of Interpretation of Statutes, and the question referred to us seems to have been decided by the Apex Court. The controversy is concluded, leaving nothing which can be recognised as Res Integra. The question to be answered by us is:Whether the amendment brought in Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) by the Gujarat Act No. VII of 1985, deleting or omitting word 'regularly' can be said to be retrospective or retroactive in operation? Or the same is prospective only?2. The compactus of the Supreme Court Pronouncements, to which we propose to advert in course of sequence, will guide us to opine that the provisions contained in the Amending Act, including the deletion or omission of word 'regularly' are only prospective and not retrospective or retroactive in operation.3. A brief note of the Legisla...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Jayantibhai Chaturbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1472
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. When we were called to consider whether this appeal requires admission or not, we have not been able to take up as one of us (N.N. Mathur, J.) who is from Rajasthan. having the difficulty of going through the judgment which is in Gujarati, the same could not be taken up. In fact, on today's Board, there are several such matters which shall have to be adjourned on the solitary ground that the copy of the impugned judgment and order runs into Gujarati which is proved to be a manifest handicap for this Bench to consider. Having come across this patent difficulty of the language we would be simply failing in our duty, as the constitutional functionary, if we do not make certain pertinent observations which are absolutely necessary to facilitate the learned transferee Judge to cope up with the situation like the present one in deciding the matters. Bearing in mind the promise of 'speedy justice' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we indeed shall have to ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Shri Jigar Association Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Guj)105; [1994]209ITR608(Guj)
ORDERM.B. Shah, J. 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is a registered non-trading corporation and that its President, Shri Mahesh Kalubhai Bhatt, entered into an agreement on June 10, 1992, to purchase land bearing Final Plot No. 287 admeasuring 1,230 sq. mtr. (1,028.40 sq. mtr.) owned by the third respondent (Badhabhai Trust) for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. The third respondent is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ('the Act', for short). The trust filed an application on February 25, 1993, before the Charity Commissioner for seeking permission to sell the said land. Pursuant to the said application a public advertisement was given in the newspaper on June 4, 1993, inviting objections, if any, to the said sale and inviting offers from the public at large for purchase of the said land. It is also contended that on June 30, 1993, the Charity Commissioner opened the tenders. Two offers were received. The Charity Commissioner found that...
Tag this Judgment!Lily Shavak Doctor and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Guj)437; [1995]212ITR142(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioners who are wife and husband have challenged the order dated February 24, 1994 (annexure 'A'), passed by the appropriate authority, Ahmedabad, under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that are owners of a plot situated at Baroda and they wanted to develop the said plot in such a manner so that the name of Smt. Dinbai Bamanshah Jal, mother of the first petitioner, is always remembered for all times to come. Under the circumstances, the petitioners agreed to sell the said property to Alkapuri Sindhi Association, a registered charitable trust for a total consideration of Rs. 18,50,000. As the total consideration exceeded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000, the petitioners filled in From No. 37-I on November 4, 1993. On December 13, 1993, the petitioners and the proposed transferees placed their objections on record. The copy of the said objections is produces at annexure 'C'. However, on January 14, 1994, the appropriat...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukh D. Prajapati Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR726
ORDER (PER : VYAS, J.)(1) The applicant-original accused No. 1 alongwith nine other accused were tried for the alleged offences punishable under Section 120-B, 395, 397, 202, 193, 465, 412, 414 read with Section 34 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and also under Section 25(1)(B) read with Section 27 and 28 of the Indian Arms Act, by the learned Presiding Judge, Designated Court, Mehsana.(2) It was the prosecution case that any time before 29-6-1990, all the accused had conspired with common intention to commit decoity and robbery of the bank cash amount under the supervision and advice of the accused No. 7 and after fulfilment of that plan, the benefits were to be equally apportioned and as part of that pre-planned conspiracy on 29-5-1990 between 12-00 p.m. and 12-45 p.m. on the public road, near Sardar Chowk, the accused Nos. 2 to 6 were armed with revolver, Tamancha and deadly weapons and the accused No.l drove the jeep and they had accosted the Rickshaw i...
Tag this Judgment!Alkesh Subodhchandra Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1481; [1995]212ITR255(Guj)
1. These common orders shall govern the disposal of these three criminal revision applications presenting common questions of law and facts. 2. The questions of law in the background of facts, undisputed and accepted, are : '(1) When the money and/or the value of the valuable articles, found during search operations during a year has been accepted as the deemed income of the assessee for such financial year by the Income-tax Department and also as wealth on the basis of the returns to be filed by the assessee, can there be a charge of a wilful attempt to evade income-tax and also the wealth-tax for the said year (2) Whether the orders of the City Sessions Court in revisional jurisdiction, quashing the magisterial orders discharging the accused and directing the framing of the charges, can be said to be interlocutory orders, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR340]; (1995)1GLR143; (1996)ILLJ584Guj
Ravani, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited Company incorporated under the appropriate provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder thereof. The petitioner pray for declaration that the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act') be declared as ultra vires the provisions of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also pray for quashing and setting aside the notification dated December 1, 1983 issued by the State Government of Gujarat under Section 10(2) of the Act. By this notification, employment of contract labour has been prohibited in following process/operations as Alembic Chemicals Works, Vadodara with effect from 1-2-1984 : 1. Manufacturing of Boxes (chest)-packing. 2. General sweeping, cleaning including gardening. 3. Sorting. 4. Filtration Department (Mycellium). 5. Transportation of material (internal by truck/trolly). 6. Material handling and sorting in go...
Tag this Judgment!Shamjibhai Bhanjibhai Patel Vs. Competent Authority, U.L.C. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR742
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 1 herein) on 11th January 1985 under Section 21(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 24th March 1988 in Appeal No. Surat-12 of 1985 is under challege in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner applied for permission under Section 21(1) of the Act with respect to final plot No. 12 in Town Planning Scheme No. 8 comprising of survery No. 34A and 34B admeasuring 10,650 square metres situated at Navagam, taluka Choryasi, district Surat (the disputed land for convenience). By the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 15th September 1979, such permission came to be granted subject to certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »