Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1974)ILLJ1Guj
1. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, on 21st April, 1961, gave a notice of change desiring privilege, casual and sick leave with wages for the workers employed in the textile industry. The privilege leave asked for was with pay and allowances at the rate of one month for every month of service with a right to accumulate the same for three months. The sick leave asked for was at the rate of one month for each year of service subject to a maximum period of twelve months during the whole service. The casual leave asked for was 15 days with full pay and allowances in a calendar year. In addition, pay in lieu of privilege leave was also asked for under certain circumstances. As the mills did not agree and as conciliation proceedings failed, the reference, being Reference (IC) No. 103 of 1961, came to be made. In the said Reference the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association objected to the demand, amongst others, on certain preliminary legal grounds. Those objections were rejected by an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1974]96ITR141(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent on March 31, 1970, for purposes of reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66. The challenged has arisen in the following circumstances : The petitioner was assessed to income-tax as an individual for the assessment year 1965-66 and his assessment order was made in respect of the said year on February 5, 1966. It appears that on March 31, 1970, the respondent issued a notice under section 148 of the Act for purposes of reassessing the petitioner. The said notice was posted on the same day at Navrangpura post office at Ahmedabad. However, this notice reached the petitioner on April 3, 1970. By this notice under section 148, the petitioner was called upon to make the return, if he so desired, within 30 days of the service of the notice. Being aggrieved by this notice, which, according to the petitioner, was served beyond the prescribed perio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]98ITR255(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the power of the Income-tax Officer to rectify a mistake apparent from the record of the assessment after an appeal against a part of the assessment is disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The question arises under section 35, sub-section (1), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In order to appreciate the question it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise to the petition. 2. The petitioner was at all material times a partner in a firm called M/s. Steel and Forms Work Co. The assessment of the petitioner as an individual for the assessment year 1959-60 for which the relevant account year was the financial year ending 31st March, 1959, was completed by the Income-tax Officer on 9th March, 1960, and since the firm of M/s. Steel and Forms Work Co. had not been assessed at that time, the Income-tax Officer took the share of the petitioner in the profits of the said firm at nil subject to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj39
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. I.Lakdu, 21 Bom LR 157 (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) 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 21 Bom LR 157 = (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) that in such a case. section 98, subsection (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 and B. K. Mehta, JJ. on a difference...
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 : (1974)0GLR616; (1975)ILLJ169Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-company has raised two questions in this petition : (1) Whether the manufacture of clinical thermometer falls under the entry of 'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products' specified in Schedule I of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', when read with Item (18) of Explanation (a) 'mathematical and scientific instruments', and (2) Whether the decision of the Central Government under S. 19A resolving a doubt in this connection only on November 7, 1968, could be implemented retrospectively prior to the date of the decision from August 1, 1965, as intimated by the authorities : The petitioner-company's factory was set up on August 1, 1962, with Japanese collaboration and commercial production started in 1965. By a letter of respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, date September 4, 1965 the petitioner was asked to implement the Act and the Scheme. Thereafter, the company took up the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1974Guj153; (1974)0GLR243
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed against the father of defendant No. 2 Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1950 in the Court of the District Judge at Bhuj to recover a sum of Rs. 10,558/-. On 31st March 1958 the suit was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. First Appeal No. 17 of 1958 was filed against that order in the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot. On 19th September, 1962 this High Court allowed it, set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the suit to the trial Court for decision on merits. On 9th August 1965 the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff filed against the defendant No. 2 an application for executing the decree in order to recover the total decretal amount of Rs. 21,875.85 p. including cost and interest. In execution of that decree he attached a piece of land which has been described in the judgment of the trial Court as the suit verandah. The defendant No. 1 resisted the attachment. He applied for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1974CriLJ178; (1974)GLR203
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant who has been convicted of an offence punishable, under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment, by the learned City Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No, 918 of 1970. Review application has been filed for enhancement of the sentence.2. The appellant was charged in that, he in the month of August, 1968, printed for sale in the name of Prakash Vardhan, a book bearing the title 'EK SANSKARI GHARNI YUVTINl KHAN-Gl DIARY' which is an obscene book. In that, it contained the following passages quoted in the sheet attached, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Mr. G. A. Mehta, appearing for the appellant, has contended that the appellant was charged for the aforesaid offence having been committed sometime ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1973Guj233; (1974)GLR64
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who is a registered voter in the village Khad--Khambhalia challenges in this petitioner the notification issued on September Gujarat Panchayat Act. 1961. hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' by the competent authority dividing this Gram into three election wards and district three seats to each ward. The Khad--Khambhalia Gram Panchayat originally consisted of four village-- Khad--Khambhalia. Nava Dhunia Khatia and Rakka. From the inception of the Group Gram Panchayat in 1952. election was always uncontested and its 11 seats at that time had been divided as under: Khad--Khambhalia --6 Khatia -- 2 Nava Dhunia --1 Rakka --2.Thus, as against 6 seats for Khad--Khambhalia. Nava Dhunia had only one seat for all these 18 to 20 years,. The old Gram Panchayat had passed unanimous resolution to have separate Panchayat for all the four villages. However, the State Government under Section 9 of the Act gave separate Panchayat by constituting only Khatia Rakka as new ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR537
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. I entirely agree with my brother Divan J., but in view of the importance of the question involved, I would like to add a few words of my own in regard to the last contention of the petitioners that the Court-fees levied on an application for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not a fee but a tax and Article 15 of the First Schedule to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, which provides for levy of such court-fees is, therefore, outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It was common ground between the parties, and in any event it cannot now be disputed in view of a recent decision given by the Supreme Court on 1lth November 1972 in Civil Appeal No. 293 of 1967 : The Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department v. Zenith Lamp & Electrical Ltd., (yet unreported) : [1973]2SCR973 that it' Court-fee levied under Article 15 of the First Schedule is a tax and not a fee, it would be beyond the competence of the State Legi...
Tag this Judgment!