1
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-06-1979
Reported in : (1979)2GLR575
ORDERAs per Ex. 55, this Darkhast is withdrawn Cost on D.H. 29-7-1965.Sd/-C.J. (S.D.)The interpretation of the aforesaid order is to decide the fate of the present appeal.7. After having obtained the permission from the Collector Baroda on 3-1-1970, at stated above, the appellant re-presented the present Darkhast against the same judgment debtors for the same reliefs as he originally prayed in Darkhast No. 21/56. The said Darkhast was filed on 28-1-1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) Baroda and it was numbered as Darkhast No. 4/71. In all respect, the execution application i.e. Darkhast No. 4/71 was identical with the earlier Darkhast No. 21/56, save and except the tact that in the second execution application the latter development which took place pursuant to the High Court order in F.A. No. 100/60 and the further development leading to the permission of the Collector which was granted on 3-1-1970 were mentioned, but the reliefs prayed for in Darkhast No. 4/71 were completely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-01-1979
Reported in : (1979)2GLR464
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This group of 52 appeals arises out of as many suits filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. They were filed by shareholders of corporate employers in which they challenged the vires of Sections 3 and 6A of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat) Rules, 1962. They contended that the aforesaid provisions were ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the suits were instituted in 1975 and others were instituted in 1976. No evidence was led in the suits. They were decided on the basis of legal arguments advanced before the learned trial Judge. On 2nd September 1978, they were decided by the learned trial Judge by a common judgment. He turned down the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suits. Decrees passed by him in all the suits are challenged by the plaintiffs in these appeals.2.Before we enter upon the examination of the contentions raised by the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-23-1979
Reported in : (1980)21GLR627
D.P. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal in respect of an offence punishable under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (the Act); and it raises the question whether the establishment of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or under the relevant prior Legislation, carrying on the work of architect, would be a commercial establishment as defined by Section 2(4) of the Act so as to make it compulsory for it to get itself registered under Section 7(1) read with Section 7(2) of the Act The respondent limited company was prosecuted for contravention of Sections 7(9) and 51 of the Act and Rule 23(4) & (5) of the Rules framed under the Act. The substantial allegations in the complaint filed by the Shops Inspector of Baroda Municipal Corporation was that during his visit and enquiry on April 12, 1977 he found that this was an establishment which was not registered under the Act and that it had not maintained the muster-roll, salary register and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-15-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Guj89; (1980)1GLR103
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion:1. Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Nanumal Rajumal v. Lilaram Vensimal : (1977)18GLR858 is a, good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram. (1976) 1 SCC 85V 2. If a statutory tenant has also an estate and is heritable and transferable, would it require a notice for determination of that estate as prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. The above two questions arise in the following circumstances:The deceased father of the plaintiff land lords, who are the petitioners before us, filed H. R. P. suit No. 5218 of 1965 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1975 arises, in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad against the defendant-tenants who are the respondents herein, for possession of the residential premises bearing municipal census Nos. 2926 and 2923/1 situate in Zaveriwad Kalupur, Ahmedabad, which were taken on leas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-29-1979
Reported in : [1979]118ITR544(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration in the present case is the scope and interpretation of s. 80K of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The special civil application has been filed by the two petitioners challenging the decision of the respondent herein, ITO, Company Circle-IV, Ahmedabad, in deciding to grant relief under s. 80K only to that portion of the exempted dividend which has been worked out at Rs. 77,42,921 and it is prayed that the respondent should be directed to issue a certificate in accordance with law showing therein the portion of the exempted dividend of Rs. 95,50,889 in respect of the Polyester Fibre plant and the Sulzer plant of the first petitioner-company. The decision of the respondent is dated August 24, 1978. 3. The first petitioner-company is a limited company and is engaged in manufacture of textiles, chemicals, plastics and polyester fibre. The petitioner company's shareholders number about 52,000. The relevant accounting period for the purpose of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-03-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Guj158; (1980)0GLR132
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff firm filed the present suit against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of damages suffered by it. Indian Overseas Bank is the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that a cheque drawn by it on Indian Overseas Bank, Geeta Mandir Branch, Ahmedabad and payable to m/s. Mysore Commercial Union Limited was wrongly dishonoured on February 11, 1970. The plaintiff also alleged that it had an overdraft facility with the Bank to the extent of Rs. 5000/-. The cheque in which was dishonoured by the Bank was a sum of Rupees 3,916/04 ps.2. In defence it was contended by the Bank that the plaintiff had no overdraft facility and that the cheque was dishonoured because there was no sufficient cash balance in its account.3. The learned trial judge held that the plaintiff had overdraft facility with the Bank and that the Bank had wrongly dishonoured the cheque in question even though the cheque could be honoured within the limits of overdraft facility. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-25-1979
Reported in : (1979)GLR413; (1979)0GLR413; [1979]118ITR134(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. These two appeals under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad, are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad of July 25, 1975, allowing the two appeals filed by the respective respondent-transferees herein from the order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range-II, Ahmedabad, passed on January 16, 1975, acquiring two industrial sheds of type-A bearing block Nos. 1/3 and 1/4 situate in the industrial estate set up by the Baroda Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BIDCO' for the sake of convenience) under s. 269F(6) of the aforesaid Act as the fair market value of the respective sheds exceeded the apparent consideration in the respective instruments of transfer of February 5, 1973, and had not been truly stated with the ulterior object of tax evasion and/or facilitating concealment of income or assets. Since the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-15-1979
Reported in : [1981]47STC212(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. Since the principal question arising in each of these five references is the same question substantially, all these five references were taken up for regular hearing before a Division Bench consisting of two of us (P. D. Desai and B. R. Mehta, JJ.), but thereafter these five matters have been referred to a larger Bench, so that the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khedut Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. v. Stage of Gujarat ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 105 (S.C.).), so far as the five assessees before us, each one of which is a co-operative society manufacturing sugar in the co-operative sector, can be considered. 2. A short historical background is necessary in order to appreciate the contentions raised in this case. In Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1966 decided by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (Divan, C.J., and J. B. Mehta, J.) decided on 1st July, 1968, the assessee was the Khedut Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. In that reference, afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-17-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Guj220; (1980)GLR9
ORDER1. An interesting question, which might not be of infrequent occurrence in the present days, arises in this petition and the question is whether the presiding officer of a local authority, who is himself a candidate for election to one of the statutory committees, can preside over the meeting at which the election is held and give a casting vote in case of equality of votes and thereby secure his own election. The circumstances under which the question has arisen for decision may be briefly adverted to.2. Kamraj Taluka Panchayat is con stituted under Section 14 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). There are 25 elected members of the said Panchayat. At the relevant time, one of its members was under suspension and another member was disqualifled. At the material time therefore, there were 23 elected members of the said Panchayat. Under S. 111 of the Act, a Taluka Panchayat has to constitute certain committees and one of such committees is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-22-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Guj205; (1979)GLR938; (1979)0GLR938
1. This appeal by the Municipal Corporation, original defendant, is directed against the judgment of the learned City Civil Judge, 10th Court, Ahmedabad, dated 22nd Dec. 1974, in Civil Suit No. 1966/70 whereby he declared that the notice No. C. R. 306/24 dated 14th Nov. 1969 ex. 25, issued by the defendant-Corporation under Sections 13(4) and 29 (1) (c) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is illegal and beyond the powers of the defendant Corporation consequently granted a permanent injunction against the defendant Corporation restraining it from enforcing the impugned notice against the plaintiff. The defendant Corporation was also directed to pay the costs of the plaintiff.Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:-2. There is an estate known as 'Christi Chambers' situate in final plot No. 77-2-70 of town planning Scheme No. 3, (Ellisbridge,) outside Shahpur gate, Ahmedabad. In the compound of the said estate the plaintiff runs a...
Tag this Judgment!