Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)1GLR960
Divan, J.1. In all these Special Civil Applications the common questions are the challenge to the provisions of certain sections of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, (Act No. 74 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the two notifications. (1) dated 24th December 1964 and(2) dated 16th March 1967 issued under the provisions of Section 18, sub-section (3) of the said Act. All the petitioners, except the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.1080 of 1969, are dealers in cotton seeds. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No1080 of 1969 is the Association called the Palej Cotton-seed Buyers and Sellers Association. The narration of facts in Special Civil Application No. 2 of 1968 will be sufficient o bring out the controversy between the petitioners in each of these Special Civil Applications and the respondents. The Forward Market Commission is respondent No.2 in these Special Civil Applications and the Union of India is respondent No. 1 in each these Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)0GLR746; [1965]56ITR621(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. These petitions involve common questions of law and are founded on the same facts and it could, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. Certain notices were issued against the petitioners by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ahmedabad, on 31st January, 1962, under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The reason for issuing the notices was that, according to Income-tax Officer, the following income of each petitioner had escaped assessment in the assessment year mentioned against the respective incomes by reason of the omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for such assessment year : Rs. 41,000 in the assessmentyear 1943-44.)Each of the petitioners in )Special Civil Applications ) Rs. 91,575 in the assessmentNos. 370, 371 and 372 1962. ) year 1946-47.Rs. 36,535 in the assessmentyear 1950-51) Rs. 84,520 in the assessmentThe petitioner in Special ) year 1943-44.Civil Applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1982]50STC229(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. What is the scope and width of rule 42-A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Rules'), in the context of the set-off claimed by a new industry of sales tax paid on the purchases of raw materials used in the manufacture of goods sold outside the State is a moot point arising in this reference. Shortly stated, the facts leading to this reference are as under : The assessee-company which is the opponent herein established a factory for manufacturing decorative laminated sheets and industrial laminates in the State of Gujarat. It is common ground that it is a new industry within the meaning of rule 42-A of the Gujarat Rules, and a certificate under item No. 53 of the Government notification issued under section 49 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act'), was issued in that behalf with effect from 1st February, 1971. The assessee-company has got its selling depots at various places outside the St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)22GLR503
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is a detenu who has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas (Maintenance of Public Order) Ordinance, 1980, being Gujarat Ordinance No. 17 of 1980. The detenu has been detained in pursuance of an order dated August 18, 1980. He was actually arrested on August 20, 1980. The ground of detention dated August 18, 1980 were furnished to detenu at the time of his arrest and thereafter this special criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed in this Court challenging this order of detention. The matter came up for admission before the Division Bench consisting of M.P. Thakkar add R.C. Mankad JJ. on August 25, 1980. On that day the Division Bench passed the following order:Interim relief not pressed at present as rule is to be finally heard on 1-9-80. At the request of counsel respondents are directed to keep the petitioner present in Court at 11 A.M. on 1-9-80 to enable counsel to obtain instructio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)4GLR3048
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. A common judgment, in this petition, and in group of petitions arising from Bhavnagar being Special Civil Applications Nos. 941 of 1980, 4210 of 1985, 2716 of 1998, 4153 of 1991, 4427 of 1992, 4733 of 1992 and 4847 of 1992, group of petitions arising from Surat being Special Civil Applications Nos. 8882 of 1999, 8885 of 1999, 6519 of 1998, 6461 of 1996 and a petition arising from Vadodara being Special Civil Application No. 3537 of 1998, is being passed.2. In this group of petitions arising from Bhavnagar, Surat and Vadodara, the petitioners in some of the cases, who are land owners, have claimed a declaration that the reservation of the lands belonging to them for educational purposes of University stand statutorily lapsed, entitling the land owners to use of those lands, for their benefit by development and construction, in accordance with other regulatory provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001]124STC162(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. The petitioner-Larsen and Toubro Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a leading engineering concern. It undertakes works contracts of different nature. It entered into a contract with National Dairy Development Board, Anand (respondent No. 3) for setting up automated dairy plant at Banas II Dairy on August 25, 1999 for a total value of Rs. 28,82,05,360 which is now increased, with additional works, to Rs. 29,09,51,966 on the terms and conditions contained in the document of contract.2. During the course of works contract, the petitioner-company submitted its bills periodically for payment to its employer, viz., National Dairy Development Board. The department insisted on deducting 2 per cent on the amounts payable for the works executed under various bills in accordance with the impugned provisions contained in Section 57B of Chapter VA inserted by Gujarat Act No. 15 of 1997 with effect from April 1, 1997 to Gujarat Sales Tax Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2008Guj57; 2008GLH(1)386
ORDERAkshay H. Mehta, J.1. Rule in the matters in which it is not issued. Mr. Sunit Shah, Ld. GP and Mr. Krunal Pandya, Ld. AGP waive service of rule on behalf of respondents.Since in all these petitions a common challenge to notification/resolution bearing No. GMC/1 2006-1548/C dated 22-5-2007 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat has been made, they are heard together and now they are being disposed of by this common CAV judgment.2. The petitioners are practicing as Ayurvedic doctors in the State of Gujarat. According to them, they have obtained degree to practice as required under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 ('IMCC Act' for short) and they have also obtained registration certificates issued by the medical institutions/board of the State of Bihar and in two cases of State of Madhya Pradesh, they are eligible to practice Indian medicine in the State of Gujarat. It is their say that they are doing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1974]44CompCas517(Guj); (1975)0GLR193
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by judge's summons is preferred by the Petlad Nagraplika against the decision of the official liquidator of Rajratna Naranbhawi mills company Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as ' the company'), dated 14th August, 1972, rejecting the claim for priority in payment, claimed by the petitioner in repsect of an amount of Rs. 4,141.69. Petitioner claimed the aforementioned amount form the comapny. The liquidator admitted the claim against the comapny, but declined to given priority in payment as claimed by the petitioner under section 530(10(a) of the Companies Act. Aggrieved by the lAtter part of the order refusing priority in payment, the petitioner has taken out this judge's summons under rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, challenging the order of the liquidator. Property in payment was claimed on the allegation that the petitioner is a local authority and the amount represents the revenue payable by the company tot he local authority. Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1979]43STC516(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the point involved in the question referred to us by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax for our opinion under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. In the course of assessment of the period from 17th January, 1966, to Aso Vad 30 of S. Y. 2022 (corresponding date being 12th November, 1966), the assessee, who is opponent before us, had purchased cotton yarn worth Rs. 46,775 from registered dealers on payment of sales tax of Rs. 924.50 on the said purchases. The assessee then made inter-State sales of such cotton yarn purchased from registered dealers on which the sales tax was paid. The Sales Tax Officer had levied sales tax at the rate of 2 per cent. on the aforesaid inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') and an amount of Rs. 947.20 was recovered from the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR990
M.C. Trivedi, J.1. Food Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation Shri U.H. Shah has filed this appeal against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1973, by which he acquitted respondent No. 1 Abdulwahab Abdulmajeed of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravention of Section 7(1) of the Act. He was prosecuted in the Court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Surat, for having committed the said offence on 15th may 1973 by selling 375 grams adulterated and sub-standard Coconut Oil to complainant, Shri U.H. Shah. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate found him guilty of the offence changed against him and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default R.I. For 2 months more. There wer...
Tag this Judgment!