Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR36
V.B. Raju, J.1. This if a second appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra. In first appeal the District Judge of Panch Mahals at Godhra confirmed the decree dismissing the suit.2. The facts of tips litigation can be briefly stated as follows: Under the powers delegated to it under Section 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 (XXIV of 1946) which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act the Govt. of Bombay issued an order on 16-1-1953 called 'The Bombay Government Oilcakes (Procurement) Order 1953 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Procurement Order. Section 3 of this Order provided that every mill shall with effect from Monday the 19th January 1953 reserve 50 per cent of the production of groundnut oilcakes produced in his mill every week and deliver to the Government or any person authorised by it in this behalf on presentation of a release order such of the quantities from out of the produc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)3GLR1931
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 25th March, 1996, whereby the learned Magistrate returned the complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer (F.E.R.A.) to be produced before the Court, at Surat.2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present Criminal Revision are as follows :Accused No. 1 - Jayantilal Satyadev Patel, resident of Surat was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, at Surat at the relevant time. Accused No. 2 M/s. Kakadia Builders Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Surat. Accused No. 3 - Shri Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia is the Director and ln-charge of the accused No. 2 company. He is also a resident of Surat and a builder by profession.Accused No. 1 Jayantilal is the nephew of one Shri Narottambhai Jagabhai Patel wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)2GLR1065; (1993)ILLJ695Guj
Majmudar, J.1. This Spl. C.A. is moved by Misc. Mazdoor Sabha through its Secretary on behalf of its members who were workmen working with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are joined as constituted attorneys in charge of the said concern while respondent No. 6 is joined through its Managing Director, being parent company whose wholly owned subsidiary is respondent No. 3 industries. 2. The case of the petitioner-Union is that services of all the employees working with respondent No. 3-Company were terminated illegally on February 3, 1988 by notice at Annexure 'B' without following the provisions of Secs. 25F, 25FFA, 25N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) and Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. Respondent No. 3 was registered as a private Company on December 20, 1982. According to the petitioner, one of the objects of the company, as seen from the Articles of Association, was to carry on business of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1981Guj107
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. The petitioners are the owners of city Survey Nos. 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1567-Part and 1574-Part situate in Kalupur Ward in the city of Ahmedabad. Some of these survey numbers bad superstructures standing on them. On 30th May, 1957, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of these lands. The public purpose which was stated in the notification was that they were required for a municipal play-ground. On 13th March 1958, notification under Section 6 was issued. Land Acquisition Officer made award of compensation on 30th June, 1960. Thereafter there was a reference to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under Section 18 of the Act. The City Civil Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The award made by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad was challenged by the State Government in this High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and modified the award. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1980)2GLR132
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of city Survey Nos. 1559,1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1567-Part and 1574-Part situate in Kalupur Ward in the city of Ahmedabad. Some of these survey numbers had superstructures standing on them. On 30th May 1957, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of these lands. The public purpose which was stated in the notification was that they were required for a municipal play-ground. On 13th March 1958, notification under Section 6 was issued Land Acquisition Officer made award of compensation on 30th June 1960. Thereafter there was a reference to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under sec, 18 of the Act. The City Civil Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The award made by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad was challenged by the State Government in this High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and modified the award. On 11th Octo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : I(2006)BC349; 2005CriLJ2077; (2005)2GLR1750
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. By means of filing instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), the petitioner against whom Criminal Case bearing No.324 of 2001 is filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara for alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 ('the Act' for short) in which process has been issued, has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint and the process issued thereunder, on the grounds stated in the petition.2. The petitioner is the original accused No.7 whereas respondent No.1, a Proprietary Concern, is the original complainant in the above referred to Criminal Case. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the petitioner is referred to as 'accused No.7' whereas respondent No.1 is referred to as 'the complainant' hereinafter in this judgment. 3. As per the averments made in the complaint bearing Criminal Case No.324 of 2001 filed in the Court of learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1979Guj1; (1978)GLR1047
Divan, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred by the Division Bench of this Court for the decision of the Full Bench is as follows :'Whether an appeal against the decision of a single judge of this High Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is barred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (a) because the decision of the single judge can be said to be given in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court; or (b) it is otherwise barred?'The Division Bench consisting of two of us (Chief justice and D. P. Desai, J.) referred this question to the larger bench, because it was felt that the decision of the Division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and R. C. Mankad. JJ. in Letters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 1977 decided on 6-2-1978 : (reported in : AIR1978Guj96 had not taken into consideration two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Anand : [1962]45ITR414(SC) and Shankar v. Krishnaji : [197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR981
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioners in this civil revision application were tenants of a shop which belonged to the opponents in the town of Dholka. The shop was taken on rent as a monthly tenant in 1949 and the petitioners since then carried on the business therein of selling tools and parts of machinery. Respondent No. 1, in partnership with two other persons, was carrying on business in two shops adjoining each other. They deal in kerosene, vegetable ghee, cigarettes, match-boxes, grossery and other miscellaneous articles. They had also to hire godowns to store their goods. The respondents filed suit No. 71 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge at Dholka to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground inter alia of reasonable bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The suit was resisted by the present petitioners on several grounds. Inter alia they contended that the suit premises were not required by the landlord bona fide and reasonably for personal occupation and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1971)12GLR213
A.D. Desai, J.1. These two criminal revision applications raise the same questions for our determination. The facts pertaining to these two applications are similar and they were argued together. Hence we shall dispose of them by this common judgment.2. In Criminal Revision Application No. 293 of 1969, the facts are that the Food Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the petitioner and seized bottles containing material described as 'Kashmir Madhu'. The seizure of the bottles was made in the presence of two panchas. The seizure was effected because according to the Food Inspector the petitioner was selling the bottles as 'honey' though in fact the bottles did not contain 'honey'. The petitioner was thus selling the bottles in contravention of Rule 45 of the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector then filed an application No. 1 of 1968 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Municipality), Surat producing the bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]85STC258(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions, a common question of vires of section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as amended by section 2 of the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990, arises for consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. In order to appreciate this common grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to not a few introductory facts : 3. I. Introductory facts : The petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). They carry on the activity of manufacturing and selling various goods in this State. For the purpose, they require raw materials which are to be used in manufacturing the end-products. The raw materials purchased by them in the State and used in the manufacturing process have been subjected to purchase tax by the impugned provisions. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature...
Tag this Judgment!