Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1256; (1975)1GLR313
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The Division Bench consisting of D. A. Desai and A. N. Surti, JJ., has referred the following question to & larger Bench which has now been placed before us:Who would be the appointing authority in respect of a servant belonging to the State Service prior to his allocation to the Panchayat Service on his allocation to Panchayat Service becoming final and on his becoming a member of the Panchayat Service and who, accordingly, would be competent to remove him from service ?2. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been taken up before us in this appeal, a few facts need be stated. In Special Case No. 1 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Amreli, two accused were put up for trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Out of the two accused, accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and also to fine. As re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1984)2GLR1244
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this group of Special Civil Applications the co-operative societies of diverse nature such as primary societies as well as federal societies extending service and credit facilities, producer societies banking societies rendering banking services at urban, district and State level, sales and purchase unions at taluka, district and State level, challenge the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act of 1981) and the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act of 1982) by which the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act) has been substantially amended. Since challenge to these two amending Acts in all these Special Civil Applications is almost on identical grounds and the main contentions urged by the Learned Counsel appearing in these matters are also identical, we propose to dispose of the enti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)1GLR365
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment and award of enhancement of compensation from Rs. 0.07 per sq. mt. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 7.50 per sq.mt. (Rs. 7.43 per sq. mt. additional) in respect of 3,20,776 sq. mts. with 30% solatium and 15% interest per annum from the date of possession till the date of award of Land Acquisition Officer and 9% per annum till one year after the possession was taken. It is further directed that if the amount is not paid within one year from the date of the award of the Court, the claimants will be entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the entire amount is deposited. The additional award is for Rs. 43,75,662.29 and with running interest, the award is of more than one crore of rupees as against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer which was of less than Rs. 2,50,000/-.2. Section 4 Notification was issued on January 12, 1978 as the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1199
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the brother of the detenu one Mahavirsinh Manubha Rana has challenged the order of detention of December 15, 1976 purported to have been made by respondent No. 2 herein under Section 8 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention ot Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter known as 'COFEPOSA') with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping smuggled goods. A few facts need be noticed in order to understand the challenge made in this petition,By an order of February 26, 1976. the brother of the petitioner was detained under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA with a view to prevent him from engaging in keeping the smuggled goods. This order was revoked by the State Government by its order of December 15, 1976 and on the same day the impugned order was made. It is an admitted position that the grounds on which the revoked order of detention was made were the same on which the impugned order has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1974)15GLR474
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench of seven Judges is necessitated because a question has arisen whether a decision given by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Bombay High Court in Bhuta v. Lakdu 21 Bom. L.R. 157 lays down the correct law. The point which has been referred to us for our opinion is, whether the procedure applicable in case of difference of opinion amongst Judges constituting a Division Bench where they are equally divided in opinion in the decision of an appeal from a subordinate Court is governed by Section 98 Sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench of five Judges has taken the view in Bhuta v. Lakdu that in such a case Section 98 Sub-section (2) applies and not Clause 36 and this view taken by five Judges of the Bombay High Court is assailed in the present reference. The reference has been made by J.M. Sheth B.K. Mehta JJ. on a difference of opinion arising between them in a First Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1979CENCUS404D; (1980)GLR284; (1980)GLR825
ORDERS.H. Sheth, J.1. Cibatul Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. 1956, is the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the manufacture'). They are manufacturing U.P. Resins, M.F. Resins and Expoxy Resins. They are 'excisable goods' within the meaning of that expression given in Section 2(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Excise Act'). Ciba Geigy of India Limited are their wholesale buyers. They are a company incorporated in India and are hereinafter referred to as 'the buyer'. Ciba Geigy Limited is a third company incorporated in Switzerland and is referred to hereinafter as 'the Swiss Company'. 65% of the share capital of the manufacturer is held by Atul Products Limited, 30% of its share capital is held by the Swiss company and the remaining 5% of its share capital is held by the buyer. So far as the buyer is concerned, 65% of its capital is held by the Swiss Company. The Swiss company has registered trade mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR730
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This is a group of Letters Patent Appeals directed against the judgment of Mr. Justice Divan in several writ petitions relating to employees of the pre-reorganized State of Bombay. The facts giving rise to the appeals are identical in material particulars barring only difference in dates and it would, therefore, be sufficient if we take Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 1971 as representative of the group and briefly recapitulate the facts giving rise to that appeal.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 1971 arises out of Special Civil Application No. 884 of 1969. The petitioners in this Special Civil Application joined service as clerks in the pre-reorganized State of Bombay years ago, long before the reorganization of the States took place on 1st November 1956. On the reorganization of the State of Bombay under the States Reorganization Act, 1956, the petitioners were allotted to the new State of Bombay and when the new State of Bombay was bifurcated into the States ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR122
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The following three questions have been referred for our decision by a division bench of this Court consisting of A.D. Desai and T.U. Mehta JJ. The questions referred to us are as follows:(1) Whether on the court coming to the conclusion that some grounds given for the detention are not according to law and some are valid the court should set aside the entire detention order passed under Section 3 of the Act without attempting to further probe into the question whether the detain ing authority would have passed the order of detention even though some of the grounds are proved to be invalid?(2) When one or more of the several grounds given for preventive detention under Section 3 of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling Activities Act, are found to be irrelevant, or non-existent, or bad whether the whole of the order of detention is vitiated or whether in such cases the court should, by applying the tests of reasonable man exclude the irrele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR636
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court, consisting of A.D. Desai and C.V. Rane, JJ., hearing this appeal found difference of judicial opinion on the point whether a Municipality constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, is entitled to file suit for recovery of octroi duty, referred the following questions for our opinion:1. Whether the provisions of Sections 93 to 98 of the Municipal Act of 1925 and Sections 121 to 127 of the Municipalities Act of 1963 impose a personal liabil ity on the importer to ply octroi duty on octroiable goods imported by him within the municipal limits for consumption, use or sale.2. Whether such personal liability is imposed by octroi Rules and Byelaws of 1962 framed by the Godhra Borough Municipality.3. Whether Section 203 covers octroi dues other than those recoverable under Chapter VIII of the Municipal Act of 1925 and Chapter IX of the Munici palities Act of 1963.4. If the answer to point 3 is in the negative, whether the provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR382
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners of both these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional vires of the Act known as Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) and especially Sections 3, 5 and 6 thereof mainly on the ground that these provisions result in excessive delegation of legislative power to the Central Government and also result in encroachment over states power to legislate on the subject of police. This Act is hereinafter referred to either as the impugned Act or the Act.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioners in both these petitions are limited concerns which run textile mills named the new swadeshi mills and manjushri textiles at Ahmedabad they admittedly belong to Birla group of mills.3. On 13th June, 1967, a first information report alleging the offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 I.P.C., Section 7 of essential commodities Act and Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, was lodged against the management of these two mills an...
Tag this Judgment!