Gujarat Court July 2000 Judgments
Dalsukhbhai Keshavlal Vs. National Institute of Design
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR561]; (2001)GLR74
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. In the present petition, rule has been issued by this Court on 21st April, 1988 and by way of ad-interim direction, the operation and the implementation of order Annexure-III dated 18th March, 1988 is stayed. 2. Suspension is dismissal mitigated at the discretion of the employer by a promise to re-employ. 3. The principles of natural justice are easy to proclaim but their precise extent is far less easy to define. 4. The rule against basis is one thing. The right to be heard is another. Those two rules are essential characteristics of what is often called natural justice. They are the twin pillars supporting it. The Romans put them in the two maxims : Nemo Judex in Causa Suo : and Audi Alteram Partem. They have recently been put in the two words : Impartiality and Fairness. But they are separate concepts and are governed by separate consideration. 5. One of the great principles of civilized jurisdiction which is a part of the law in Britain and which has been adopted...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Cerwool Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar Jilla Shramjivi Sangh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR253]; (2001)IIILLJ913Guj
H. K. Rathod, J.1. Learned advocate Mr. D.M. Thakkar has appeared for the petitioner. Learned advocate Ms. Shah has appeared for the respondent-Sangh.2. The doctrine of absolute freedom of contract has, thus, to yield to the higher claims for social justice. The right to dismiss an employee is also controlled subject to well recognized limits in order to guarantee security of tenure to industrial employees.3. It is too late in the day now to stress the absolute freedom of an employer to impose any condition which he likes on labour. It is always open to industrial adjudication to consider the conditions of employment of labour and to vary them if it is found necessary, unless the employer can justify an extraordinary condition. It is important to remember that just as the employer's right to exercise his option in terms of the contract has to be recognized so is the employee's right to expect security of tenure to be taken into account.4. The concept of social justice is not narrow, or...
Tag this Judgment!Kotecha Brothers Vs. Bileshwar Khand Udyog
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3350
M.R. Calla, J.1. This is the plaintiff's First Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 31.12.1979 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar in Civil Suit No.82/74 whereby the plaintiff's Suit was dismissed.2. Hereinafter in this judgment the present appellant will be referred to as 'the Plaintiff' and the respondent as 'the defendant'. The defendant is a Co-operative Society carrying on business of manufacture and sale of sugar. This Co-operative Society is actually named as Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandli Ltd. This defendant Society entered into a contract for purchasing 13 Twill 106 bales from the Plaintiff at the rate of Rs.515/- per 100 gunny bags, one bale containing 300 Nos. of gunny bags. According to the plaintiff, the defendant Society took delivery of 30 bales in truck and out of Rs.46,409/-, Rs.42,200/- had paid paid by defendant on 8.4.74. Thereafter, another consignment was sent to the defendant - Society of 35 bales in the truck and against a sum o...
Tag this Judgment!Fulaben Wd/O Chunilal N. Vs. Ganeshbhai Punabhai Chanawala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR545
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is landlord's Revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, against concurrent judgments and Decrees of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.2. The Revision arises out of the following facts :Super structure locally known as 'IMLA' standing over the City Survey No.3068 situated in Fata Talav area, Bharuch city, was let out by the father of the plaintiffs No.2 to 6 and husband of plaintiff No.1 to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.5/-. The tenancy commenced on 7.11.1965. It was alleged that the defendant admitted to be tenant of the plaintiffs till 8.6.1970 and thereafter he started acting as if he is not the tenant in the Suit premises and the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit premises, he started denying the title of the plaintiff in respect of the Suit premises. Consequently the Suit for eviction of the defendant was filed by the plaintiffs - reisionists on the ground of disclaimer of title.3. The defendant in his written statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Harshadbhai Dahyabhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR626
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner by filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to quash and set aside Annexures D & E i.e. order Annexure `D' passed by respondent no.2 on 18.1.88 in Fragmentation Case No. 4/87 and order Annexure `E' passed on 20.7.88 whereby the order Annexure : D is confirmed in Revision Application vide Annexure : `E'.2. It is not disputed that vide Annexure : `A' dated 3.1.79/4.1.79, Assistant Collector, permitted Chhotubhai Kalyanji Desai to transfer the property being land situated in village Jujva in favour of Shri Harshadbhai Dahyabhai and Natvarlal Makanji. Considering the special facts, it seems that the permission was granted despite the fact that the land in question was covered under the provisions contained in Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is required to be noted that the sale deed was executed on 8th February, 1980 and entries were made in the relevant record. Thereafter, a show caus...
Tag this Judgment!Varsha Exports and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(71)ECC834
B.C. Patel, J.1. Rule in Special Civil Application Nos. 5239 of 2000, 5365 of 2000, 5812 of 2000 and 5903 of 2000. Mr. Asim Pandya waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. These matters are filed against the respondents challenging the legality and validity of the Circular No. 38/2000-Cus. dated 10th May, 2000 issued by the Government of India. 3. Short facts required to be considered for disposal of these matters are taken from Special Civil Application No. 5112 of 2000. 4. Petitioners are engaged in reprocessing and manufacturing Plastic Agglomerates/Granules out of plastic scrap. Petitioners are also selling their goods in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of duties in terms of EXIM Policy and the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. The goods manufactured in 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) or those manufactured in the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) are liable to duties of excise equivalent to the aggregate of duties of customs, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Guj)21
A.R. Dave, J.The Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred to this court, under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) the following question of law arising out of its order No. ITA No. 731/Ahd/1982 for consideration of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the claim of Rs. 3,00,000?'2. The facts and circumstances in which the reference has arisen, in a nutshell, are as under :2.1. The applicant, assessee-company, is in business of manufacturing vessels used by chemical industries. It entered into a contract with Godrej Soaps (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Godrej'), for supply and erection of a spray drying plant for synthetic detergent plant for a consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs. During the relevant assessment year 1977-78, the plant was erected and the assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 34.49 lakhs against bills issued by the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Lucky Star International Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2001(78)ECC691; 2001(134)ELT26(Guj); (2000)4GLR412
B.C. Patel, J.1. Rule in Special Civil Application Nos. 5239 of 2000, 5365 of 2000, 5812 of 2000 and 5903 of 2000. Mr. Asim Pandya waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.2. These matters are filed against the respondents challenging the legality and validity of the Circular No. 38/2000-Cus. dated 10th May, 2000 issued by the Government of India.3. Short facts required to be considered for disposal of these matters are taken from Special Civil Application No. 5112 of 2000.Petitioners are engaged in reprocessing and manufacturing Plastic Agglomerates/Granules out of plastic scrap. Petitioners are also selling their goods in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of duties in terms of EXIM Policy and the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. The goods manufactured in 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) or those manufactured in the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) are liable to duties of excise equivalent to the aggregate of duties of customs, which wo...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh @ Raju Chandulal Gandhi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2586
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Whether, the appellants are guilty and responsible for the, ghastly and macabre, killing of deceased Girish Namdar or not, is the central theme, in this conviction appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.12.94, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.190/93.2. Under the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, who are, original accused persons have been held guilty under section 302, 120-B, 452, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IP Code) and section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. The appellants, who are, original accused persons, for the sake of convenience, are hereinafter, referred, to as accused Nos.1 to 3, as originally arraigned in sessions case. Accused No.1, Rajesh, (A-1) is ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 10 days further rigourous imprisonment f...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of Ambalal Sarabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR445(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal's order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal. At the instance of the Revenue : Asst. yr. 1972-73 Ref. Appln. No. 970/Ahd/1981 (1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73 under s. 147(b) was not legal ?' At the instance of the Assessee : Asst. yr. 1973-74 Ref. Appln. No. 961/Ahd/1981 : (1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the ITO was justified in reopening the assessment on the basis of the information received fr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »