Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj128; (1962)0GLR269
Desai, C.J. 1. This Special Full Bench has been constituted in order to consider the question relating to the binding nature of the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to 1st May, 1960, on this High Court. This very matter was considered by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court including the then Chief Justice in the case of Anand Municipality v. Union of India, reported in : AIR1960Guj40 . Later on, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Raju and Mr. Justice Bakshi found it difficult to accept the view expressed by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case and made a request for referring the question to another Full Bench for a re-consideration of the matter. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of (1960) 1 Guj LR 82 : (AIR 1960 Gujarat 40) (FB) that the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to the 1st of May, 1960, i. e., the day on which the State of Gujarat came into being fell within the ambit of the words...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)0GLR804
1. During the course of my experience at the bar and on the Bench I have come across very few petitions under section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, which have been brought to a conclusion. The remedy under section 397 or 398 as a weapon in the shareholders' armoury has proved more potent when brandished in terrorem than when actually used to strike and it has, therefore, in most cases served as an effective threat to induce those in control to behave reasonably towards all interests and in some cases where those in control have not behaved reasonably and the remedy has been invoked, the proceedings have mostly terminated in a compromise securing the interests sought to be prejudiced by those in control. This petition has been an exception and the only reason I can see for its having run its full course is that there is absolutely no merit in it. I shall immediately proceed to state the facts giving rise to the petition. The facts are many and to some extent disputed and it is,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj57; (1968)GLR376
Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavanagar, directing defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 12,879-7-0 as and by way of damages for breach of a contract dated 14th August 1954 alleged to have been committed by them. The plaintiffs are a partnership firm and they carry on business of manufacture and sale of groundnut oil in Bhavanagar. The first defendants are also a partnership firm on which the original defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 were at the material time partners. The fourth defendants are a Limited Company carrying on business in Hongkong. On or about 14th August 1954, as a result on negotiations which took place between Messrs. D. N. Marshall and Company acting as broker for the plaintiffs on the one hand and the first defendants on the other, a contract was entered into between the plaintiffs and the first defendants for sale of 50 tonnes of groundnut oil packed in sound second-hand 40/45 gall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1974)15GLR833
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants against the respondents for obtaining the possession of the suit premises which are occupied by the respondents as tenants. The premises in question consist of a shop admeasuring 3 to 4 ft. in width and 7 to 8 ft. in length situated at Dholka.The suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge, J.D. at Dholka, where it was registered as Civil Suit No. 56/63. The appellants claimed the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide personal occupation for the purpose of conducting his business of selling aerated water in the suit premises. One contention which was raised by the plaintiff was that the premises were not covered by the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act').2. The suit premises were admittedly first let to the respondent's father before the year 1950. The respondents and respondents's father are conducting a barber ...
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 : [1976]104ITR167(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following four questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the payment of betterment charges to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1954, made by the assessee was allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law was allowable that the penalty of Rs. 9,700 paid for infringement of customs laws was allowable as business expenditure (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the payment of damages for delay in payment of provident fund contribution was allowable as business expenditure (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1419
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In these two matters where before the Division Bench consisting of J. B. Mehta and P. D. Desai JJ. certain common questions of law regarding the validity and extent of operation of Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act) arose, the Division Bench felt that fundamental questions of widest amplitude had been raised in order to challenge the vires of Section 5-A and so the Division Bench decided that in view of the importance of the matter, the following two questions should be referred to a larger Bench.(1) Whether Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is retroactive so as to apply to orders of detention passed on or before July 1, 1975?(2) If so, whether it is ultra vires, either because it impinges upon the power of judicial review and impairs the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)1GLR268
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an Appeal from Order brought to this court by the original plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 of the Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 1972, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-7-77 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Jamnagar, ordering the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.2. The appellant No. 1 Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act and having its office at Bombay is the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit. This company is manufacturing knitting machines. This company bad entered into an agreement with the plaintiff No. 2 to sell some of those machines. The plaintiff No. 2, is a company at Mohrenstrassee in Berlin in the German Democratic Republic. The plaintiff no. 3 is the Insurance Company, having its office at Bombay, now undertaken by the United India General Insurance Company, the State concern. The defendant No. 1, who is the respondent No. 1 herein, is Verb Deutsche Seereederai, which is a company hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1983Guj34; (1983)1GLR292
ORDERB.K. Mehta, J.1. By order of May 4, 1982, this suit was stayed for reasons to be subsequently pronounced which are stated hereunder :On behalf of the original first and fourth defendant, the owners of vessel Hoegh Orchid, and their agents in India respectively, a notice of motion was taken out for a stay of the suit and further proceedings mainly on the ground that there was a foreign arbitration clause in the chartered party contract entered into between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the said defendants on the other. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out briefly a few facets which necessitated the filing of the present suit by the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India respectively as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. On or about July 14, 1973 the Union of India, the first plaintiff herein, entered into a chartered party contract with Lief Hoegh and Co., Oslo, Norway who are the owners of the aforesaid vessel Hoegh Orchid wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas368(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This is an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, invoking the inherent powers of this court with a view to enabling applicants to get certain remarks made by me in my judgment dated November 19, 1981, in Company Petition No. 49 of 1978 with Company Application No. 115 of 1981, expunged. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the applicants in the present application, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts leading to the aforesaid company petition which came to be disposed of by me by the aforesaid judgment. 3. Relevant facts, undisputed and/or well-established facts on record. - The present three applicants are the managing director of Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., a public limited company earlier registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and then governed by the provisions of the Companies will mention Ambica Mills Ltd. as petitioning company which had filed Company Petition No...
Tag this Judgment!