Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-18-1976
Reported in : (1977)18GLR1024
D.A. Desai, J.1. Shri Prakash Surya, Petitioner herein, has preferred this revision applieation against the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1970 filed by him in the District Court, Kutch at Bhuj, by which he was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful posses- sion of the pretnises occupied by him as a tenant. Respondent is the original plaintiff.2. Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 1969 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anjar, District Kutch, against the defendant for recovering possession of the premises being a house situated in Adipur town on the ground that the defendant is a tenant in arrears and is not shown to be ready and willing to pay the rent and also on the ground that the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The defendant-tenant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement Ex. 14, inter alia, contending that the notice terminating the tenancy was not legal and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-04-1976
Reported in : (1976)17GLR1017
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who was a Judge of this Court challenges in this petition the order of his transfer dated May 27, 1976 at Annexure 'A'. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under.2. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court on January 28, 1946. He practised at Bombay since his enrolment until April 30, 1960 and on the formation of the Gujarat State, he shifted his legal practice to this High Court where he practised till April 22, 1969. On April 23, 1969 he was appointed a Judge of the Gujarat High Court for a period of two years and was appointed a permanent puisne Judge on August 5, 1970. The petitioner' would retire on completion of the age of 62 years on January 5, 1981 and so, a period of about four years and six months was left for him to retire from service.3. The petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order to the Andhra Pradesh High Court without obtaining his consent, without consulting him and agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-12-1976
Reported in : AIR1978Guj13; (1977)GLR424
1. The plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Suit No. 2736 of 1975 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on Sept. 10, 1975 claiming a permanent injunction against the defendants respondents restraining them from exhibiting the cinematographic picture named 'Jai Santoshl Maa'. Defendant-respondent No. 1 is a name and style of business carried on by defendant-respondent No. 2, who had produced the said movie. Defendant-respondent No. 3 is the Director of the movie and defendant respondent No. 4 had written the Them thereof Defendant-respondent No. 5 is the distributor and defendants-respondents Nos. 6 to 14 are the theatres wherein the aforesaid movie was exhibited in the City of Ahmedabad After filing of the suit the plaintiffs to* out a notice of motion for a temporary injunction restraining the exhibition of the movie by the defendants. On notice being given to the defendants, they appeared and showed cause. After hearing both the parties the learned City Civil Judge discharged the rule on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-17-1976
Reported in : 1976ACJ464; AIR1977Guj146; (1977)0GLR467
ORDER1. An unfortunate and illiterate widow belonging to a scheduled tribe, whose husband died in a motor vehicle accident, has been driven to this Court because her petition claiming compensation has been rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out. The circumstances (to be presently mentioned) under which the delay was occasioned speak for themselves and it is somewhat strange and agonizing that the second opponent (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation) should have shown such determined diligence in setting up the plea of limitation under those circumstances against a person like the Petitioner.2. In the course of an accident which occurred on November 15,1972 the husband of the petitioner was killed. The vehicle involved in the accident is owned by the second opponent. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Broach on March 17, 1973, that is to say well within ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-13-1976
Reported in : [1977]107ITR133(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The assessee in both these cases is the same and the assessment years are different, viz., in Income-tax Reference No. 125 of 1974, the assessment year is 1965-66, whereas in Income-tax Reference No. 181 of 1974, the assessment year under reference is 1966-67. 2. The common question which is involved in both these cases in also the same. But in each of these two reference one additional question besides the common question has also been referred to us for our opinion. Since the common question which arises in both these mattes is the question of major importance, we will dispose of both these matters by this common judgment. 3. In Income-tax Reference No. 125 of 1974, at the instance of the revenue, the following questions has been referred to us for our opinio : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the one-fifth of the expenditure incurred by the assessee for purchase of drawings, designs and pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-05-1976
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
Decided on : Aug-12-1976
Reported in : (1977)18GLR660
D.P. Desai, J.1. In a petition to file in Court an arbitration agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1949 (hereafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'the Act'), numbered as Special Suit No. 140 of 1976, an application for temporary injunction was given by the plaintiffs praying that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants, their servants and agents be restrained from stopping supply of liquid ammonia to the plaintiffs and that the defendants be ordered to supply to the plaintiffs liquid ammonia in terms of the agreement dated 16th December, 1970 on the plaintiffs paying to the defendants the price thereof as may be demanded by the defendants without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The plaintiffs are a public limited company engaged in manufacture of Sodium Nitrite and Sodium Nitrate, which required liquid ammonia for the manufacture. Admittedly, the agreement dated December 16, 1970 was entered into between the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-23-1976
Reported in : (1977)IILLJ409Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-agent, who had been serving at Santh Piply Branch, Nadiad, having been dismissed by the order, dated June 5, 1974, communicated on June 10, 1974 at Annexure E, challenges the said order in this petition. The petitioner had joined the service of the original Bank of Baroda in the year 1958 as a clerk. He was promoted as an officer and was appointed as an agent at Santh Piply Branch of the Bank of Baroda at Nadiad. In the course of duties he had purchased some foreign bills (travellers' cheques) at the Santh Piply Branch at Nadiad aggregating to a sum of Rs. 25,000. These bills had come in his possession on behalf of his Bank. He had deposited the amount of the foreign bills in the main branch at Baroda. On enquiry it was found that this was highly irregular and improper and the petitioner's explanation in this connection was, therefore sought by the letter, dated May 28, 1973, at Annexure A for ascertaining the full facts. The petitioner had addressed a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-1976
Reported in : (1977)0GLR498; (1977)IILLJ127Guj
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question which is involved in this petition is whether an employee, who is found to be receiving a salary more than Rs. 1,000 per month on the date on which the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 came in to force, is entitled to the payment of gratuity under the said Act on the basis of 5 years' continuous service on a non-managerial post in the past on the salary of Rs. 1,000 per month. This question arises in the following set of facts. 2. The petitioner is a limited company and the respondent was in its employment as Sales Engineer. The respondent joined the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Sales Engineer on 20th June, 1962 on the salary of Rs. 450 per month. He was, thereafter, promoted as Sales Engineer on 1-5-1970, when his salary was more than Rs. 1,000 per month. The Gratuity Act, 1972 came into force on 16th September, 1972. On that date, the respondent was receiving the salary of Rs. 1,200 per month, i.e., more than Rs. 1,000 per month. Thereafter the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-31-1976
Reported in : [1977]107ITR63(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribuna : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record which the Income-tax Officer could have rectified under section 154 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 ?' 2. In the instant case we are concerned with the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee is a registered partnership firm and carries on the business of a refinery at Surat. The business was started from February 20, 1963. The relevant years of account are Samvat years 2022 and 2923, respectively, for these two assessment years. The order of assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 was passed on March 1, 1968, and the total income computed was Rs. 1,49,863. The assessment order for the assessment year 1968-69 was passed on March 1, 1968, and the total i...
Tag this Judgment!