Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2000ACJ1125; AIR2000Guj211; (2000)2GLR1281
Panchal, J. 1. This First Appeal has been placed before the Larger Bench in view of an order of reference made by the learned Single Judge on January 19, 1996.2. In order to understand the scope of the reference, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief which are as under :The appellant was travelling on June 15, 1986 in luxury bus bearing registration No. GRP-3586 and was going from Bombay to Junagadh. When the bus reached near Vadtal Chokdi on Ahmedabad-Bombay Highway, the bus driver noticed a truck lying in front of the bus. He, therefore, after giving signal, started overtaking the truck and at that time, a public carrier bearing registration No. GTW-4156 owned by the respondent No. 4 and driven by its driver came with full speed from opposite direction and dashed with the right hand side of the bus. As a result of the accident, the appellant was injured. Therefore, she filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Motor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1204; (1998)IIILLJ278Guj
M.R. Calla, J.1. These 64 Special Civil Applications are based on identical facts and raise common questions of law and hence the same are decided by this common judgment and order.2.The learned Counsel Dr. Sinha, Mr. Koshti, Mr. Patel and Mr. Raval have submitted that for the purpose of pleadings they would refer to the-pleadings and the documents contained in Special Civil Application Nos. 179 of 1995,249 of 1995 and 7744 of 1991 and, therefore, the references, which are made hereinafter to the pleadings, documents, etc., are taken from the Special Civil Application Nos. 179 of 1995, 249 of 1995 and 7744 of 1991.3. There are 2 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 179 of 1995, 46 petitioners is Special Civil Application No. 249 of 1995, 13 petitioners in Special Civil Application No.737 of 1995, 3 petitioners is Special Civil Application No. 8216 of 1995 and initially there were 59 petitioners in Special Civil Application No.4797 of 1990, but later on 58 separate one page peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj149; 1990CriLJ1758; (1990)1GLR529
(1) Is it compulsory for a dealer in the fair price shop having his shop situated in the market area to obtain a licence under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short hereafter referred to as the Market Act)? Thus, an impertinent question that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding the interpretation of Section 8 and words (i) 'general commission agent', and (10 'trader' as defined in Sections 2(vii) and 2(xxiii) respectively of the said Markets Act. (2) The material facts constituting the context and the background out of which the above question emerges are briefly stated as under: 'Whether, when any person (i) who is strictly and exclusively a dealer in the fair price shop, and (ii) is so authorised by the Government intending to distribute the essential commodities like good-grains, sugar, rice, millet, etc. (for short, hereafter referred to as the agricultural produce) to the weaker sections of the society at a fair and reasonable price, and (ii...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR683; (2009)23VST298(Guj)
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. This group of petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the prayers, inter alia, that a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to make the earlier exemption granted to the petitioners by the certificates issued by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 available to the petitioners for the purpose of exemption under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 at least for the duration as mentioned in the aforesaid certificate (passed under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969), if not for more time.2. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant exemption to the industry of the petitioners under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 from the date of coming into force of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the same terms as exemption has been granted earlier under the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas107(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. Messrs. Veljee Shamji & Co., a registered partnership firm, filed Company Petition No. 5 of 1976, under s. 433 read with s. 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for winding up the Bhavnagar Vegetable Products Ltd. (for short 'the company'). The said company was incorporated in 24th November, 1945, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as applicable to the then State of Bhavnagar. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 25,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and 25,000 ten per cent. cumulative redeemable preference shares of even value. The paid up capital of the company is Rs. 29,98,600 consisting of 17,492 equity shares of the value of Rs. 100 each and 12,494 cumulative redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100 each, full paid up. The redeemable preference shares were redeemable on par on 31st October, 1976, under the special resolution dated 24th June, 1967. There is also a sum of Rs. 575 received on forfeited shares. 2. The company wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1971Guj208; (1971)0GLR201
Patel, J. 1. Civil Revision Application Nos. 392 of 1966 and 371 of 1966 have been referred to the Division Bench. The same question is involved in both the Revisions and, therefore, they are heard together. 2. Civil Revision Application No. 371 of 1966 came up for hearing before our learned brother Vakil J. Vakil J. held that there was no bar of res judicata. The suit was brought by the landlord for possession of leased premises on the ground that tenancy was terminated as the tenant had subject the premises before 1-1-1964. The Saurashtra Rent Control Act was in force at the time of subletting, however, the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Gujarat Extension Amendment Act, 1963, Act No. 57 of 1963) came into force on 1-1-1964. By the said Act, the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (Saurashtra Act XXII of 1951) was repealed. The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 with amendments was applied to the Saurashtra area. The contractual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR1857; (2001)ILLJ1032Guj
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by Abad Dairy which is a unit of Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation Limited, and is an 'employer' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer feels aggrieved by a common oral judgment pronounced on 23-4-1996, 1-5-1996, 21-6-1996, 3-8-1996 and 5-8-1996 by learned single Judge (M. R, Calla, J.) (reported in 7997 (2) GLR 1204). The employer also feels aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-1-1998 passed by the learned single Judge (Rajesh Balia, J.) in some of the cognate matters, which are being decided by this common judgment.2. The common question involved in all these appeals is whether the Badli workmen employed in Abad Dairy, after it was taken over from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by the present employer i.e. Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation, are entitled to the relief of regularisation of their service and payment of consequential monetary benefits on their completion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007]135CompCas407(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Textile Labour Association, appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th August, 1998, passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 147 of 1998 with Company Application No. 265 of 1998 in Misc. Civil Application No. 6 of 1992 i.e., in the case of Industrial Finance Corporation India v. O.L. of Amruta Mills Ltd.2. Mr. D.S.Vasavada, learned advocate appeared for the appellant - Textile Labour Association. He has invited our attention to the following facts:1. The appellant submits that by an order dated 22nd November, 1991, in Company Petition No. 72 of 1991, the Amruta Mills Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by this Court. Pursuant to the order dated 12th March, 1997, passed by this Court in Misc.Civil Application No. 6 of 1992, the assets of the Amruta Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as Sthe Company), other than lands and buildings of the Company have been sold at a public auction. The sale was conducted under the reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1993Guj90
ORDERA.P. Ravani, J.1. Two students who have passed their Higher Secondary Certificate Examination -- qualifying examination for being admitted to First M.B.B.S. course -- have filed two separate petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 4(1), 5 and 9 of the Rules for Admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course in Smt. N. H. L. Municipal Medical College, framed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. One student being minor, the petition -- special civil application No. 5373 of 1992 -- is filed through his father and natural guardian. The students concerned have not been considered eligible for being admitted to the first M.B.B.S. course on the ground that they are not 'local students' as defined in Rule 5 of the Rules for Admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course (for short 'the Rules'). They have also prayed that the respondents be directed to consider them eligible for admission to the First M.B.B.S. course and be further directed to include their names in the merit list an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2006]146STC9(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following common question of law Under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act') at the instance of the applicant-State of Gujarat:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in law in allowing set-off under rule 42 of the Gujarat sales Tax Rules, 1970, on the purchase of dry-ice made by the opponent 2. The respondent-assessee, who is carrying on business of manufacturing ice-cream, claimed set-off under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 ('the Rules') in respect of the tax paid on dry- ice contending that the same was an item of consumable stores. The Sales Tax Officer, while assessing the respondent-assessees for Samvat Years 2034, 2035, 2036 and 2037, disallowed the set-off, holding that dry-ice was employed to facilitate transportation of manufactured goods and did not form an item of consumable stores, The assessee failed in the fir...
Tag this Judgment!