Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1973Guj110; (1972)GLR81
1. The deceased defendant's heirs challenge in this appeal the eviction decree passed by the lower appellant court on the ground that the defendant-tenant had without the landlord's consent in writing erected on the promises structure of permanent nature and was, therefore, disentitled from getting any protection under the Rent Act, in view of the Section 13(1)(b) of the Sarashtra Rent Control Act, 1951.2. The test for determination as on what is a permanent structure has now been evolved by the decision of the Division Bench consisting of Bhagwati, J. as he then was and myself in 6 Guj LR 27 = (AIR 1965 Guj 152) while interpreting the said section in Ibrahim v. Haji Khamahomad. Bhagwati, J. speaking of the Division Bench in terms pointed out that considering the scheme of Section 108(h) of the Transfer of property Act which entitled the tenant, on the determination of the tenancy, to remove, at any time whilst he is in possession of the premises, all things which he has attached to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Amendment is allowed. Applicant to carry out amendment as per the draft amendment during the course of the day.2. Rule. Mr. LB Dabhi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. The applicant convict prisoner, who, by judgment and order dated 20.3.2006 rendered in Sessions Case No.43 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Patan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment of life, has filed this application praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of three months, to enable him to get the treatment of the doctor of his own choice for the various ailments suffered by him.5. Having heard Mr. MR Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. LB Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present Second Appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation appellant original defendant posing the substantial questions of law as follows:(1) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the dispute between the employer and employee when the employee is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?(2) Whether the Appellate Court is wrong in setting aside the finding given under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial Court?(3) Whether the Appellate Court has power to sit over the finding given by the departmental authority under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure?(4) Whether the Appellate Court has power to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case under Order 41 of the C.P.C.?2. The short facts of the case briefly summarized are that the original plaintiff respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 147 of 1984 challenging the order of dismissal on vari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The applicant, a member of the Gujarat Sales Tax Bar Association and Sales Tax Practitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") has preferred present application seeking leave to prefer a Letters Patent Appeal against the common order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions being SCA No.11185 of 2010 and SCA No. 7466 of 2010. The applicant has preferred similar application for similar relief in SCA No.7466 of 2010 hence both the applications are decided by common order.2. The fulcrum of the said petitions was election of the Managing Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Committee") of the said Association. The applicant claims that he was elected as President in the election held on 23.9.2010, however subsequently the learned Single Judge passed order dated 25.10.2010, (which is, apparently, a consent order or "ad-invitum" order) in view of which fresh election of the committee of the said Association were to be held under the supervisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. One Shri Chandrakant B. Patel, claiming to be a senior citizen, as is mentioned in the Notice issued through advocate Shri Prashant K. Kapadia, is before this Court praying that order dated 31^st August 2010, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadodara West division, Vadodara be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner, through his wife, invested amount on various dates in Kisan Vikas Patra (hereinafter referred to 'KVP'), details of these investments are set out in a tabular form, produced at Annexure 'B', page 11 to this petition. The amount invested totals to Rs.2,80,000/-, which will be Rs.5,60,000/- on maturity. What is important is that, the wife of the petitioner was the 'SAS' 'agent' for collecting the deposits under various schemes of Post Office. Through her, the petitioner - husband deposited aforesaid amount in KVP with the Post Office authorities.2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2732]; (1996)2GLR228
1. Prayers made in para 10(AAA) are not pressed. Other prayers as contained in an amendment dated December 19, 1995 moved by Mr. Shabani, learned Counsel for the petitioner are also not pressed. This Special Civil Application has been flied by Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat on behalf of the workmen enlisted in Annexure 'A' filed with the Special Civil Application. It is submitted that all these workmen enlisted in Annexure 'A' were working with respondent No. 4 who was holding the contract labour of the Gujarat Electricity Board. The period of contract of respondent No. 4 was to be over on September 30, 1995 and respondent No. 5 was given contract by the Gujarat Electricity Board for a period of one year commencing from October 1, 1995 (sic). Respondent No. 4, therefore, terminated the services of these workmen as his contract period was going to be over on September 30, 1995. The present Special Civil Application was filed on September 28, 1995 and on September 29, 1995 notice returnable by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The appellant original accused No.1 has preferred this appeal under sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special Case No. 33 of 1998, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant accused No.1 for the offence under section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 18 (eighteen) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for further three months. Vide the said Judgment, the learned Special Judge has acquitted original accused No.2 from the offences charged against him.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:That the accused No.1 (appellant herein) was discharging his duties as Talati-cum-Mantri in Group Gram Panchayat of village Didarda, Taluka Tharad and the accused No.2 was working as Chowkidar....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2003]259ITR617(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer is barred by limitation ?' 2. The assessment year in question is the assessment year 1973-74. The asses-see filed a return of income on August 14, 1973, declaring the total income of Rs. 10,904. The due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was June 30, 1973. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a circular on June 20, 1973 (see [1973] 90 ITR 20), extending the time for filing the return for the assessment year 1973-74 up to August 15, 1973. The assessee thereafter filed the revised return on March 22, 1976, disclosing the total income of Rs. 11,304. The Income-tax Officer processed the said return and completed the assessment on March 15, 1977, treating the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1983)2GLR1414
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since the aforesaid two Special Civil Applications challenge the Rules for preparation of Merit List for admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Courses (hereinafter described as 'the Registration Rules') enacted by the Gujarat University in pursuance of the writ issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3704 of 1982 Dr. Vikram K. Shah v. State of Guj. 24(1) G.L.R. 551 the judgment in which (Per N. H. Bhatt, J.) has been also questioned in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, raising the common questions of law and fact, we propose to dispose of all the three matters by this common judgment.2. We will refer to the contesting parties in these matters by their respective position in reference to the Letters Patent Appeal.3. It is necessary to set out the material facts so as to appreciate the three dimensional dispute in proper perspective.4. In order to provide for proper training in basic medical sciences either related to the disciplines concerned for M. D....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)1GLR654
M.B. Shah, J.1. In this group of petitions, the validity of Section 76 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, which is enacted after obtaining the President's assent on June 1958, and Sections 32A and 32B read with Article 20(a) and (b) of Schedule I to the Act as amended by the Gujarat Act 21 of 1982, is challenged on various grounds. By amendment of Article 20(a) and (b), it is provided that the Stamp Duty on conveyance is to be charged on the basis of the consideration for such conveyance or, as the case may be, the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such conveyance whichever is greater.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners raised the following contentions at the time of hearing of these matters:I. Section 76 of the Bombay Stamp Act read with Schedule II insofar as it repeals the Central Act (Indian Stamp Act, 1899) is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.II (a) It is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature to amend Sec...
Tag this Judgment!