Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR941
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This Civil Application raises an interesting question which I had no occasion to decide at any time perior to this.2. The facts leading rise to this civil application are as follows: the opponent moved the court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing an arbitration agreement. It was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1968, in the Court the Civil Judge, Senior Division Jamnagar. Mr. D.A. Chhaya, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar, passed on Ex. 199 an order in the said suit, appointing Mr. N.J. Mankad, as the sole arbitrator in place of salt Commissioner of India, Jaipur. Civil Revision Application No. 460 of 1973 was filed in this court by Mrs. Tarabai Lalji, who moved the Court for filing an arbitration agreement, to set aside that order. In that revision application, the order appointing Mr. N.M. Miabhoy as an arbitrator in place of Mr. N.J. Mankad came to be passed on the basis of the consent terms. Material term No. 2 which is r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR729
C.V. Rane, J.1. This judgment will govern the disposal of Second Appeal's Nos. 666 and 667 of 1969 which arise out of Civil Appeals Nos. 32 of 1968 and 31 of 1968 respectively, decided by the learned District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur on June 16, 1969 and June 25, 1969 respectively.2. Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and their deceased brother Koli Ishwar Kasala (respondent No. 3) had filed two suits being regular Civil Suits Nos. 32 of 1966 and 33 of 1966 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Deesa to obtain a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the deceased Ishwar Kasala in favour of the defendants on 2-4-1962 were null and void and also to recover possession of the suit fields from the defendants. During the pendency of the suits, Ishwar Kasala gave an application to the trial court to indicate that he wanted to withdraw the suits. The learned trial judge ordered that Ishwar Kasala should be transposed as defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas706(Guj); (1975)GLR942
Desai, J.1. By these two applications, a new dimension is being added to the varied jurisdiction enjoyed by a company judge in company matters, and a question of considerable importance and magnitude has been raised, which, on investigation, is found to be not hedged in by any precedent. A brief statement of facts relevant to the topic would be sufficient to focus the attention not only on the legal, but also economic, social and sociological aspect of the question raised herein. 2. Panchmahals Steel Limited, hereinafter referred to as the company, was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 12th September, 1972, initially as a private limited company, but has been subsequently deemed to be a public limited company, limited by shares. The registered office of the company is situated at G.I.D.C. estate, Kalol, district Panchmahals. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 15 lakhs divided into one lakh equity shares of Rs. 10 each and 5,000 cumulative redeemable preference sh...
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 : [1976]46CompCas279(Guj); (1976)GLR592
D.A. Desai, J.1. This summons is a sequel to a very unfortunate tragedy of an unprecedented character that occurred in the process of reviving, rejuvenating and resuscitating a sick production unit in this city. Hathising . ( in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as 'the company', was ordered to be wound up way back by an order made in 16th August, 1965, in Company Petition No. 9 of 1965. Since then, the spinning unit of the company remained idle and in the process got deteriorated over a period of a decade. Number of litigations by persons having rival interests in the company flooded the court. It was somewhere in 1972 that there appeared on the scene late Shri Chhotalal Devchand Shah who came forth with a scheme of compromise and arrangement through Shri Rajendrakumar Maneklal field Company Application No. 43 of 1972, under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for directions for convening the meetings of the equity shareholders and different kinds of creditors and o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas1(Guj); (1976)1GLR555
D.A. Desai, J.1. This summons is taken out by the official liquidator of the Baroda Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (In liquidation) for deciding the following question : 'Whether the amount standing as credit balance in the account of credit society (The Baroda Spinning and Weaving Mills - Rajratna Sheth Jhaverchand Laxmichand - Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.) is trust money, not forming part of the assets of the company and that the society ranks outside winding up or Whether the amount is part of the assets of the company and distributable as such in the course of winding up ?' 2. On a petition filed by Western India Dye-stuff Corporation being Company Petition No. 6 of 1967 presented on 8th March, 1967, the Baroda Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 17th April, 1968, and the official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator of the company. The liquidator proceeded to take into its custody all th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas227(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the Bank of Baroda Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferor-company') for the sanction of the court to a scheme of arrangement for its amalgamation with Mahindra Ugine Steel Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee-company') under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and for consequential directions under section 394 of the Act. * * * *2. I must now turn to the consideration of the question as to whether sanction should be accorded to the scheme. It is well-settled that in exercising its discretion in according sanction, the court will consider, first, whether the statutory provisions have been complied with; secondly, whether the classes were fairly represented by those who attended the meeting and whether the statutory majority were acting bona fide, and, thirdly, whether the scheme is such as a man of business would reasonably approve. Bearing in mind these princ...
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!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]98ITR85(Guj)
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This revision petition is filed by original defendant No. 1, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amreli, in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 1968, filed by the plaintiff (opponent No. 1), against the petitioner and opponent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2), dismissing the application, exhibit 45. That application was filed on behalf of the defendants of the suit raising objection against the prayer made by plaintiff-opponent No. 1, summoning a clerk of the income-tax department for production of certain records produced in the income-tax proceedings. * * * *2. The learned trial judge negatived the contention of the defendants and ordered the production of these documents relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sivagami Achi v. Ramanathan Chettiar. 3. The learned single judge has referred the matter to a Division Bench, and that is how the matter has come to us. 4. Mr. Suresh M. Shah, appearing for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR172
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned judge of the city civil court, 5th court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 1266 of 1965. The suit has been dismissed on a preliminary ground, that the suit is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 161(1) of the Bombay police Act, 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to the Act).2. Plaintiff-appellant Fatehsinh Madhusinh Rathod was, at the relevant time, working as a police sub-inspector and was made a member of the prohibition and gambling squad consisting of himself, three head constables and nine constables. The task of the said special squad was to detect and investigate prohibition and gambling offences committed within the city of Ahmedabad. According to the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Police by notice dated 26-5- 1960, the charge-sheets in respect of offences detected and investigated by the special squad had to be prepared and submitted by the respect...
Tag this Judgment!