Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1978)0GLR108; (1979)ILLJ60Guj
D.A. Desai, J.1. This petition by a helper employed by the p1 Ahmedabad Co-operative Department Stores Limited ('employer' for short) questioned the correctness and validity of an order made by the manager of the employer on December 19, 1973 dismissing the petitioner from the service of the employer and the order made by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference I.C. No. 217 of 1974 converting the order of dismissal into one of discharge. 2. The backdrop of the case which will illuminate the issues that have been canvassed at the hearing of this petition may be briefly stated. By November 17, 1973 the petitioner was serving as a helper employed by the employer for two and half years and was assigned the work of preparing bills and weighing commodities sold to the customers in the premises of the employer. On the relevant date, that is, on November, 17, 1973 he was in receipt of a consolidated monthly wages of Rs. 145. On November 17, 1973 somewhere in the evening one customer came to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj15; 1963CriLJ162; (1962)GLR701
Shelat, J.12. On behalf of the accused, Mr. Mankad raisedcertain questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of thelearned trial Judge and misjoinder of charges. Briefly stated, his contentions were as follows:(1) That the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the accused on the charge under Section 477A of the Penal Code.(2) That the trial suffered from illegality as thecharges were in contravention of Sections 233 and 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the offences or criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Penal Code, misconduct arising from the acts of criminal breach of trust and falsifications of accounts in respect of the sums of Rs. 40/-, Rs. 15/- and Rs. 392/- could not be joined together and the accused could not be validly tried in one joint trial.(3) That the acts of misconduct as defined in 5. 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were in respect of four distinct sums, viz., Rs. 40/-, Rs. 15/-, Rs. 20/-end Rs. 392/- and as the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1980Guj74; (1980)GLR201
Divan, C.J.1. This special civil application is under Art. 228 of the Constitution and the petitioners herein pray that this Court should call for the record and proceedings of Spl. Civil Suit No. 72 of 1978 from tke Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad and dispose of the said suit or. in the alternative, that this Court should determine the issue as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and the after return the said case to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad with a direction to dispose of the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court on the said issue, The petitioners herein are some of the defendants in the suit pending in the Cot-ut of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad. Respondents Nos. 6 to 11 are also defendants in the said suit. Respondents Nos. I to 7 in this special civil application are the plaintiffs in the said. suit. The facts leading to the present special civil application are as follows: On August 23, 1971. one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1587
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Centuries old, classic, constitutional, conceptual, and critical contest between; a personal liberty, a life of Democracy; 'Rule the Stale by the Normal', on one hand and 'Oh Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name'; on the other, has again been, surfaced in this Referential consideration and adjudication, in this petition based on Constitutional writ remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.PREFATORIAL PROFILE :2. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. All men are endowed by their creator with certain 'unamenable rights'. Justice, Liberty and Equality have been the pursuits of Man in civilized society. Preservation of human life is the most important right for an individual. Personal liberty has been claimed as a part of 'right to life' and with the development of this concept, Courts have come to protect various aspects of personal liberty as part of protection of life. Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. In these cases, while the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act, 2008"], sought for a declaration that Sections 67, 73, 73A, 74, 74D, 76, 81 and 81A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act"] as amended by the Amending Act, 2008 are unconstitutional and invalid. Prayer has also been made to set aside the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the Reserve Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as "the RBI"].2. When the matter was taken up on 10.8.2010, Mr SN Soparkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the RBI, informed that both the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the RBI have been substituted by fresh guidelines dated 18.6.2008 and all the co-operative societies have been allowed to function as per their Bye-laws.3. An affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 1^s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]102ITR105(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, jewellery held by the Hindu undivided family was exempt under section 5(1)(viii) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction admissible is in respect of tax payable pursuant to the relevant returns filed by the assessee or whether such deductions is admissible in respect of such tax as finally determined on assessments ?' The above question have been referred to us in the following circumstances; 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the relevant assessment years for the purpose of this reference are 1962-63 to 1964-65. The assessee claimed before the Wealth-tax Officer that the value of jewellery and ornaments amounting to Rs. 1,85,216 was exempt under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act on the ground that they were meant for personal use ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)3GLR74
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Precious Carrying Corporation Pvt. Ltd., & others, petitioners have filed this petition with a prayer that respondent No. 1-Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2-Director of Prohibition, Ahmedabad, and respondent No. 3-Co!lector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad be restrained from interfering with the trucks owned by the first petitioner and or hired by them from passing through the territory of Gujarat with liquor-loaded therein for the purpose of delivery thereof in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners also challenged the validity of Rule 10 of the Gujarat Through Transport Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the ground that said rule do not impose reasonable restrictions nor restrictions are in public interest and even on this ground the said Rules violate the guarantee of free trade, commerce throughout the territory of India as guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution of India.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3321; (2004)3GLR670
D.P. Buch, J.1. The petitioner above named, has preferred thispetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing andsetting aside an order passed by respondent no.4 hereinunder section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign ExchangeManipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (forshort, 'SAFEMA') dated 23.3.1993 placed atAnnexure 'G' Page no.45 and subsequent order of theAppellate Tribunal being No.F.P.A.No.28/AHD/93 dated7.12.1995 placed at Annexure 'H', page No.81 against thepetitioner.2. It appears from the record that on 25.2.1977, thehusband of petitioner - Karim Bachubhai who was detainedby order under section 3(2) of the Conservation ofForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling ActivitiesAct, 1974 (for short, 'COFEPOSA act'). The said orderwas challenged by filing a writ petition being SpecialCriminal Application No.101/77. On 3.8.1977 when thesaid matter was being argued before the Court a point wasraised that the petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj194; (1962)0GLR85
Shelat, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of prohibitionrestraining the respondents from deporting orexterning the petitioner from out of the territoryof India, the petitioner's case being that he is acitizen of India.2. The petitioner entered India on November 17, 1954. on a Pakistani passport dated the 2nd of November 1954 bearing No. 239028. After coming to India he was employed by his cousin, one Yusuf Ismail Lala, a forest contractor carrying on business in Godhra, first as a cleaner and thereafter as a driver of a motor-truck. The petitioner obtained a licence from the R.T.O.. Baroda, for . the purpose of enabling him to drive the motortruck, and got himself married to one Kulsum, the daughter of Moosa Gafur of village Vejalpur in district Panchmahals. Thereafter he was prosecuted in criminal case No. 743 of 1958 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra, on a charge under See. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2010]24STT121
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all these petitions, and since they are heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application Nos. 9656 & 9713 of 2008 are filed by Domestic Tariff Area Units and goods are cleared to SEZ units under LUT/Bond and/ or rebate.3. Special Civil Application Nos. 11032 & 9806 of 2008 are filed by SEZ Developers and remaining 8 petitions are filed by SEZ Units. The Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers followed the procedure of LUT/Bond while clearing the goods to SEZ Units.4. In Special Civil Application Nos. 9656, 9713, 10444, 10445, 10446, 13298, 11032 and 11909 of 2008, Mr. K.S. Nanavati and Mr. Mihir H. Joshi, learned Senior Advocates appeared with Mr. Keyur Gandhi for Nanavati Associates for the petitioners.5. In Special Civil Application Nos. 9792 & 9806 of 2008, learned advocates Mr. Vikram Nankani with Mr. Uday Joshi with Mr. Hardik Gupta of M/s. Trivedi and Gupta Advocates and Mr. Hardik Mo...
Tag this Judgment!