Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-10-1983
Reported in : (1984)1GLR429
S.L. Talati, J.1. The petitioners are the military personnel and they are undergoing imprisonment at Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad and they have now filed this petition challenging their trial and the conviction by the Court of Martial and their prayers are for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and further declaring that Sections 124 and 125 of the Army Act, 1950 are as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and further to declare Rule 61 of the Army Rules as unconstitutional and ultra tires Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.2. In the title to the petition begins however by mentioning Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is stated that the petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The facts as they appear are that on 8/9-10-1979 in Leh (Ladakh) Kashmir an accident occurred as a result an inquiry was started against 12 per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-28-1983
Reported in : (1984)2GLR1140
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this group of petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of the Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977, enacted by the State Government by the Government Notification of April 24, 1978 under Section 214 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code with effect from September 1, 1976. The petitioners also challenge the Bombay Land Revenue (Gujarat Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 by which it, inter alia, sought to amend Section 214 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') so as to empower the State Government to make rules retrospectively and purporting to validate the Amendment Rules so far as they levied non-agricultural assessment retrospectively.2. Since the Validation Act, the Amendment Rules and the consequent levy as aforesaid have been impugned on almost identical grounds in this group of petitions, except Special Civil Applications Nos. 2249/81 and 1786/80 which are to be disposed of by separate orders, we propose to set out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-30-1983
Reported in : [1983]55CompCas623(Guj); [1984]147ITR294(Guj)
Desai, J.1. For the reasons to be declared hereafter, we hereby dismiss all the four appeals with no order as to costs. 2. At this stage, the appellants of appeals Nos. 13, 14 and 18 applied for leave under art. 133 of the Constitution today. We do not think that any substantial question of law of public importance is involved and that too required to be decided by the Supreme Court in this group of appeals. The oral leave is, therefore, rejected. Thereafter, oral motion was made for continuing the status quo today for a period of about a month. Mr. B. R. Shah, the learned advocate for the transferee-company, enumerated before us the various difficulties standing in their way. We appreciate the contention and, therefore, order that the copy of the reasons shall be made available to these three appellants as early as possible, but not later than 6th August, 1983, and the interim relief shall continue to operate only up to 31st August, 1983, but no further. A copy to be applied for urgen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-21-1983
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!