Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. This is one matter wherein, even when the Court may have some sympathy or full sympathy for the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, who is before this Court, praying that: œYour Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction and may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 (Deputy Police Commissioner, East Zone, Surat) dismissing the petitioner and order passed by the respondent No.2 (Additional Police Commissioner, Range-1, Surat) confirming the dismissal as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?; 2. The petitioner has set out in the memo of petition in para 2.1 that he was appointed as Unarmed Police Constable by order dated blank October, 1983. The petitioner was transferred to Varacha Police Station in 1998. 3. The present petition is filed challenging the order by which he is dismissed from service for having remained unauthorizedl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2001Guj118; (2001)1GLR16
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Whether the alienation of immovable property by the de facto guardian of a minor is, always void and whether it is obligatory for the minor to get it quashed by legal process and whether the minor is also obliged to resort to such legal process within the period of three years upon attaining the majority, are the questions forming the theme and heart of this Full Bench Reference. 2. During the course of the arguments of this appeal, initially, before the learned single Judge, he thought it expedient to refer the 'Entire Appeal' to the Larger Bench for deciding the controversy raised between the parties in view of two contradictory decisions enumerated in the reference order dated 26th August 1993. That is how the First Appeal has come up before this Larger Bench. Ordinarily, the question of law or formulated points under reference are placed before the Larger Bench. However, since the time-gap long and the also fact that the learned brother Judge, who has made referen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1984(3)ECC25; 1983(14)ELT1763(Guj); (1983)2GLR1108
Ravani J.1. When the tax is paid with full knowledge of facts and law, without any compulsion or undue influence or fraud, would it be open to the tax payers to claim refund of the amount of tax so paid simply on the ground that the tax recovered is either found or declared to be unlawful Moreover, if the tax payer does not plead or prove that the amount of tax in question was paid either under a mistake or under coercion, even then, will he be entitled to get refund of the amount of tax only because later on it is discovered that the recovery of the tax in question was unlawful Further question which has arisen in this matter is : That which is considered unjust and importer by the court while sitting in Court Room No. W. (i.e., while exercising writ jurisdiction), will the court be compelled to do the same thing because it is sitting in Court Room No. A (i.e., while deciding appeal against a decree in a suit) The question is when the court finds that a party is likely to be unjustly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1986Guj50; (1985)2GLR71
1. When the Sun sets and the shadows of darkness take over the day light, almost all the living beings - birds and animals, domestic as well as stray animals -get a place to lay on their head and pass the night peacefully. Even the snakes and reptiles can find their holes and stay therein without any threat or danger of being removed or thrown away. But that which is natural and usual in the scheme of nature is denied to human beings. After ensuring fundamental right to life, the citizens of this country are being denied the right to exist. Therefore questions arise - which type of society have we created and what do we desire to achieve? Is it obligatory upon the Courts of law to direct concerned executive authority to remove the hutments and clear the public road? Should the ghost of Dicey continue to haunt us and virtually rule our thinking? Is it not the obligatory duty of the Courts to be aware of the constitutional provisions and the aims and objects of the National Plans for soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1977(34)FLR244]; (1977)0GLR241; (1978)ILLJ235Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The short question which arises before us is whether the decision in Nagri Mills Ltd. v. Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, 12 G.L.R. 417, which has unsettled the industrial law for a decade on this question of limitation under S. 79(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in respect of continuing illegal change is correctly decided. The textile Labour Association, a representative union, has come up in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Industrial Court, dated October 23, 1974, dismissing the four applications which were filed by this representative union on behalf of the four concerned permanent watchmen working in the respondent-mill company for a declaration of illegal change as being time-barred. The concerned watchmen were made permanent on April 10, 1967, May 1, 1968, August 1, 1968, and May 1, 1968 respectively and on the ground of the customary concession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1977Guj37; (1977)GLR241
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. The short question which arises before us is whether the decision in Nagri Mills Ltd. v. Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, (1971) 12 Guj LR 417, which has unsettled, the industrial law for a decade on this question of limitation under Section 79 (0 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in respect of continuing illegal change is correctly decided. The Textile Labour Association, a representative union, has come up in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Industrial Court, dated. October 23, 1974, dismissing the four applications which were filed by this representative union on behalf of the four concerned permanent watchmen working in the respondent mill company for a declaration of illegal change as being time barred. The concerned watchmen were made permanent on April 10, 1967, May 1, 1968, August 1, 1.968 and May 1, 1968 respectively, and on the ground of the cu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1986(52)FLR609]; (1985)2GLR1415; (1986)ILLJ456Guj
Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which is, in substance, one under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner National Dairy Development Board has sought intervention of this Court for quashing and setting aside the award. Part-I dated 4th May, 1984 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (I.T. No. 645 of 1980. The industrial dispute between the petition Board and its workmen represented by the respondent Union came to be referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by the appropriate Government under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said dispute pertained to the demand of the workmen for payment of the bonus for the year 1979-80 at 20%. The contention of the petitioner Board was that it is not liable to pay any bonus to the workmen and that the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, were not applicable to the petitioner Board in view of S. 32(iv) as well as S. 32(v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1992(61)ELT447(Guj); (1991)2GLR1081
Shah, J.1. In these petitions the vires of sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. 2. Section 11B reads as under :- '11B. Claim for refund of duty. - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date : Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. (2) If on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise paid by the applicant should be refunded to him, he may make an order accordingly. (3) Where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under this Act refund of any duty of excise becomes due to any person, the Assistant Collector of Central E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1991ACJ904; (1991)1GLR361; (1993)IIILLJ611Guj
Bhatt, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'Act' for short), the appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Bhavnagar, on 10.8.1982, in an application for compensation being Workmen Compensation Application No. 10 of 1982. Various interesting points are raised and a multi prolonged attack is also made against the claim of compensation. Therefore, the appeal was heard at a marathon length. Since various significant points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merits of the present appeal and challenge against it, it would be pertinent at this juncture to set out relevant and material facts. 2. The present appellant is the original claimant who preferred an application for compensation for personal injuries sustained by him, under Section 3 of the Act. The claimant made the application for compensation of Rs. 3528/-unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR194
A.D. Desai, J.1. This second appeal comes before us for final decision on the reference made by our brother D. A. Desai. J. Shortly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff are neighbours and their houses are adjoining. The suit house of the defendant is situated in the east of that of the plaintiff. Till the filing of the suit, the house of the defendant had a ground floor only. There is a wall dividing the two houses. The total length of the wall is 22 feet. The breadth of the wall is 9 inches. There is no dispute between the parties that the common wall having the length of 19 feet on the ground floor is a joint wall. The first 4 feet of the wall is admittedly of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had constructed a first floor and in so doing he increased the height of this common wall. It was the case of the plaintiff that this wall on the first floor which was erected on the common wall was his exclusive property. In ...
Tag this Judgment!