Gujarat Court January 1996 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 State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT64(Guj); (1997)2GLR1277
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act, has filed these two petitions, challenging the recovery notice dated 11-3-1992 and 6-11-1992 Annexure 'C' to Special Civil Application No. 2241 of 1992 and Annexure 'C' to Special Civil Application No. 7061 of 1993. 2. The petitioner Corporation is engaged in the business of revival of closed and sick textile undertakings. New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. and Priyalaxami Mills Ltd. of Baroda, were closed on account of financial crisis and the petitioner, with a view to seeing that jobless ex-workers are provided with the work and to ensure that there is production, commenced activity by restarting the said sick Mills. On 8th November, 1985, Gujarat Ordinance No. 18 of 1985 came to be promulgated providing, inter alia, for vesting of all the assets of certain textile undertakings in the State of Gujarat and thereafter in the petitioner Corporation. The said Ordinanc...
Ramchandra Bhagwanji Desai Vs. Gulabbhai Kalidas Desai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Guj179; (1996)1GLR586
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this Special Civil Application, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 30-9-1994 whereby the Tribunal has upheld the decision of theBoard of Nominee dated 26-8-1994 holding the petitioner -- defendant Gulabbhai Kali-das Desai disqualified for contesting the election of Director in view of Rule 26(B) of Sardar Bhilwadwala Pardi Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bye-laws, hereinafter referred to as Bye-Laws and Rule 19 of the Election Rules of the Society, hereinafter referred to the Election Bye-laws.2. The respondent No. 2 Sardar Bhildwala Pardi Co-operative Bank Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is an Urban Co-operative Bank incorporated and/or deemed to be incorporated under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). The Bank has framed its Bye-laws which are approved and sanctioned by the Registrar of the Co-operative So...
Pricon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj58; (1997)1GLR745
ORDERM.S. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Manufacturing Cement Pipes at Ankleshwar. Cement is therefore, one of the raw material required by the petitioner company. The petition was filed in 1982 challenging the inaction on the part of respondent No. 3 in not supplying cement to the petitioner under instructions of respondent No. 2.2. The distribution and sale, levy cement and the price for its sale were governed by Cement Control Order 1967 (hereinafter referred, to as the Control Order) and the directions issued by the authorities under the said Control Order. As per the procedure then followed, respondent No. 2 Regional Cement Controller for the State of Gujarat, had issued order dated 20-2-1982 in favour of the petitioner company requiring respondent No. 3 M/ s. Associated Cement Companies Limited manufacturing Cement to supply 114 tonnes of cement to the petitioner at the specified rate of Rs. 630 per tonne. On the basis of the sa...
Kiran Oil Industries Vs. District Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj153; (1996)2GLR127
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. Rule. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent waives service of rule. At the request of both the sides the matter is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner challenges the order dated 7th October, 1993 passed by the Collector and confirmed by the Government in appeal by its order dated 20th October, 1995, by which 810 kgs. of groundnut oil worth Rs. 31,104/- was confiscated.2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had sold the groundnut oil at a price higher by Rs. 18/- per tin. It was also alleged that there was deficit of 1962 kgs of groundnut oil at the time of physical verification. The defence of the petitioner was that the price charged for the groundnut oil tins was not higher than the price displayed. It was also contended by the petitioner that the deficit in the quantity of groundnut oil was due to the reasons mentined in the reply dated 7-9-1993.3. It is evident from the impugned orders that the defences raised ...
Kanjibhai Vithaldas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR128
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The facts leading to the petition may be noticed in brief. The petitioner purchased lands in Block No. 753 (Survey Nos. 511/1 and 511/2) admeasuring 1 acre 19 gunthas in the sim of village Delavada, Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana on 13-7-1963 for the consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The sale was certified and the entry was mutated at No. 706 on 1-5-1966. The entry was sanctioned on 7-6-1966. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 Patel Kuberdas who is the holder of the adjoining land lodged a complaint that the land in question was notified as a fragment within the meaning of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 which could not have been transferred by the holder to anyone except to the owner of a contiguous holding. This fact is not disputed that the land in question is registered as a fragment being less than the standard area under Section 5 and entered in the record of rights under Section 6 at entry No. 397. The transferees admitted be...
Kanjibhai Vithaldas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR62
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The facts leading to the petition may be noticed in brief. The petitioner purchased lands in Block No. 753 (Survey Nos. 511/1and 511/2) admeasuring 1 A. 19 Gs. in the sim of village Delavada, Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana on 13-7-1963 for the consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The sale was certified and the entry was mutated at No. 706 on 1-5-1966. The entry was sanctioned on 7-6-1966. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 Patel Kuberdas who is the holder of the adjoining land lodged a complaint that the land in question was notified as a fragment within the meaning of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 which could not have been transferred by the holder to any one except to the owner of a contiguous holding. This fact is not disputed that the land in question is registered as a fragment being less than the standard area under Section 5 and entered in the record of rights under Section 6 at entry No. 397. The transferees admitted before t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›