Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj47; (1965)GLR433; [1965]58ITR559(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition is directed against a notice dated 13th November 1663 issued by the Income-tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward-G, Ahmedabad, under Section 148 of theIncome-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The notice is impugned as invalid on three grounds which we shall presently state. But in order to understand and appreciate those grounds, it is necessary to state briefly a few facts. The petitioner was assessed to tax as an individual for the assessment year 1947-48 and his assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward E, Circle II, Ahmedabad, by an order of assessment dated 31st January 1952. The Income-tax Officer thereafter received information that a certain profit alleged to have been made by one Natwarlal Manilal Pandit on sale of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 63 at Vastrapur really belonged to the petitioner since Natwarlal Manilal Pandit was merely a benamidar of the petitioner and that the said profit had escaped assessment by r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR56
V.B. Raju, J.1. This Special Civil Application relates to Village Panchayats Elections. The main contention in the application is that the Collector of Mehsana having formed the wards in the village Tavadiya under Section 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 (which for convenience will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) had no authority to reform the wards for the purposes of the same election. It is contended in the petition that the reformation for the purposes of the election of the wards by the Collector who had previously formed the wards in a different manner is illegal and void. It is also contended that this formation is contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution as the reformation is based on communal considerations.Most of the facts are admitted and are as follows:2. The Government issued a Notification declaring Tavadiya as a village under Section 4 of the Act. The Government also issued a Notification ordering that election to the Village Panchayat of Tavadiya s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1971Guj131; (1970)GLR897
Bhagwati, C.J.1. These petitions challenge the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The petitions divide themselves in two groups: one group consisting of Special Civil Applications Nos. 977/68, 1533/68 and 630/69 relates to lands situate in three villages, namely, Rampur, Dhori and Saroda and the other group consisting of Special Civil Applications Nos. 218/69 and 220 to 222 of 1969 relates to lands situate in village Sarendi. The facts giving rise to the two groups of petitions are a little different though most of the questions of law are common and it is, therefore, necessary to state the facts separately in relation to each group. But before we do so, we may point out one common feature in all the petitions, namely, that in each of these villages, at one time or the other, the scheme of consolidation of holdings was prepared by the Consolidation Officer and confirmed by the Settlement Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)1GLR487
R. Balia, J.1. This Second Appeal is by two of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in original Civil Suit No. 237 of 1970, in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch, against the judgment and decree dated 15-10-1978 passed by Extra Assistant Judge, Kutch in Civil Regular Appeal No. 176 of 1974 affirming the judgment and decree passed by Joint Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch, on 18-11-1974. The appellants are Kutch Wakf Board through its Secretary, Kutch Muslim and Education Welfare Society, a Wakf registered under the Wakf Act, 1954.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -Sadhu Nandram Govindram and Thacker Purshottam Ganesh filed a suit as the representative suit under Order I, Rule 8 for the following reliefs:(i) That it be declared that above mentioned suit property bearing Survey No. 917 of Bhuj shown as Karimdina alias Kalu Suleman Musafarkhana mentioned in the supplementary list of Wakfs of Kutch at Serial No. 2 in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 6-5-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)0GLR1065; (1966)IILLJ768Guj
Mehta, J.1. These three special civil applications filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution raise the same questions as to the scope of the revisional powers of the Inspector-General of Police under the Bombay police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the rules, and as to the validity of these rules. We have, therefore, heard all these applications together and are disposing them of by this common judgment. 2. All the three petitioners were, at the relevant time, serving as head constables in the Kaira district. Disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against them. They were chargesheeted and after a proper inquiry and the show-cause notice which had been issued, they were punished by the order of the District Superintendent of Police at Kaira and were reverted to the post of a constable for the period stated in the orders passed against them for the misconduct proved against them in their respective charges. Against the said order, the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR291
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The principal question which arises in these petitions relates to the scope and ambit of the power of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to an application made by an employed person for deducted wages under Section 15 where the claim for deduction is sought to be supported by the employer by reference to the provisions of Section 7(2)(h). The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical save for the name of the petitioner and the amount involved in each case and it will, therefore, be convenient if we set out the facts relating to the petitions together. The petitioner in the first petition was at all material times employed as a Material Examiner in the Loco Shop, the petitioner in the second petition was employed as a Fitter in the Electrical Workshop and the petitioner in the third petition was employed as a Fitter in the R.M. Shop of the Western Railway Administration at Dohad. In respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)1GLR256
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since an identical question of law has been raised on behalf of the judgment-debtors in these matters arising out of the execution proceedings, I intend to dispose them off by this common judgment. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the question raised in its proper perspective.2. The respondent of First Appeal No. 147/77 is a decree-holder, who has sought the execution of the consent decree made in Special Civil Suit 13 of 1973 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Jamnagar for a sum of Rs. 17, 823-49 Ps to be realised from the sale of the mortgaged property mortgaged under the deed of mortgage of July 17, 1969.3. The judgment-debtor (Appellant) resisted the execution application, contending, inter alia, that the mortgaged property could not be put to court auction and transferred by the sale in view of the provision contained in Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Ceil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas830(Guj)
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The applicant is a shareholder and member of the respondent-company and he has challenged the validity of the annual general meeting of the company held at Surat on the ground that it is in violation of the provisions of section 166 of the Companies Act, 1956, and has prayed for a declaration of illegality and for declaring all the business transactions at the said meeting as null and void. Section 166(2) of the Companies Act reads as under : '166. (2) Every annual general meeting shall be called for a time during business hours, on a day that is not a public holiday, and shall be held either at the registered office of the company or at some other place within the city, town, or village in which the registered office of the company is situated : Provided that the Central Government may exempt any class of companies from the provisions of this sub-section subject to such conditions as it may impose : Provided further that : (a) a public company or a private company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)10GLR1036
S.M. Hegde, J.1. Common questions of law arise for decision in these appeals, by certificate, The suits from which these appeals arise have been considered together and decided by common judgment both in the High Court as well as in the courts below. It is convenient to do so in this Court as well.2. The suits in questions are representative suits, The plaintiff's-appellants who are consumers of electricity in the Godhra area sued the respondent-company on behalf of all the consumers in that area seeking to restrain the respondent from enforcing the enhanced charges sought to be collected from the consumers of powers used for lights and fans as well as of motive power.3. The facts leading to these may now be stated. On November 19, 1922, the then Government of Bombay granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to a concern called Lady Sulochna Chinubhai and Co. authorising it to generate and supply electricity to the consumers in Godhra area. Clause 10 of the licence presc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)22GLR41
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Seventy-four post-graduate students of B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, have filed this petition in which they challenge the reservation made by the State Government for Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes and for socially and educationally backward classes for the posts of Registrar and Houseman at Post-Graduate Medical Centres in the State. On behalf of the petitioners, several contentions have been raised. They are as follows:(1) Admissions to post-graduate medical courses can be regulated by law made by Gujarat University to which B.J. Medical College is affiliated and not by the State Government.(2) Regulation of admissions to post-graduate medical courses by the State Government is in contravention of the law made by Medical Council.(3) Housemanship is a necessary concomitant of post-graduate medical education. Therefore, it is governed by the law or regu lation made by Medical Council and it cannot be governed by the State Government Resolution.(4) Housemanshi...
Tag this Judgment!