Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-08-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Guj156; (1986)1GLR101
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant, original plaintiff, of Civil Suit No. I of 1985 in the District Court of Panchmahals at Godhra has brought in challenge the judgment and order of learned single Judge of this Court, M. B. Shah, J. in Appeal from Order which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court in exercise of his powers under O. 43. R. 1 of the Civil P.C., 1908. The appellant-plaintiff had moved an interim injunction application Ex. 5 under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Civil P.C. praying for interim injunction pending the suit against the respondents-defendants. After hearing the concerned parties, the learned Joint District Judge of Panchmahals at Godhra dismissed the application Ex. 5 for interim injunction and vacated the ad interim relief. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Judge, the appellant preferred Appeal from Order as miscellaneous appeal under O. 43, R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-26-1985
Reported in : (1986)2GLR910
B.K. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Since these two petitions, first at the instance of 33 aggrieved workmen challenging the closure of Bakubhai Mangaldas Institute of Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'), and second at the instance of the said Institute challenging the award of arbitration under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directing reinstatement of 33 workmen-respondents Nos. 2 to 34 of the said petition, raise common questions of law and facts, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate these questions in proper perspective, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of these two petitions.2. B.M. Institute is a non-profit, research, service and training organisation interested broadly in preventive mental health services. It was originally founded as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1966. It was also registered as a public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-29-1985
Reported in : [1985(51)FLR308]; (1985)1GLR499; (1985)ILLJ263Guj
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. There are many enactments in this country intended to serve the purpose of extending welfare measures to the working class. Merely enacting laws would not be an adequate protection or extension of a necessary benefit. Such laws have to be implemented with a sense of commitment. That largely depends on who apply the law and how they handle it. That also depends, quite often, on the degree of efficiency of the persons administering the law and the capacity to take decisions one way or the other expeditiously. Time is of the essence and delay will destroy the advantages conceived by extension of the benefits of such welfare measures. 2. We are tempted to preface this judgment with these remarks because of the stand taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of the Gujarat State in regard to meeting the claims of the dependents of 129 deceased workmen who were working in the textile mills at Ahmedabad. Whatever might have been the stand taken by the respondent earl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-02-1985
Reported in : (1986)1GLR481
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This application is filed by one Panel Doctor, so called popularly, panel being prepared by the Employee's State Insurance Corporation constituted order the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948. The Applicant herein and his compounder have been chargesheeted by the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 161 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the allegation against them being that this petitioner, while working as a Panel Doctor under the E.S.I. Scheme, Ahmedabad, had accepted Rs. 35/- from one Hansraj Vishwasbhai Chunara for issuing a certificate. This amount was accepted by his compounder, the original accused No. 2 on behalf of the accused No. 1 and, therefore, both the accused were stated to have committed the aforesaid offence.2. The State proceeded on the assumption that the accused and his compounder were public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-09-1985
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Guj)260; [1986]158ITR636(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The assessee, an incorporated company, was at all material times, engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar and certain chemicals. Some time in February, 1970, Messrs K.C.P. Limited, Madras, contracted to sell a second hand GHH Mill from out of its Vuyyuru Sugar Factory to the assessee company for an agreed price. Subsequently, the vendor committed a breach of the contract by defaulting to sell the machinery, etc., to the assessee company. There is no dispute regarding the validity of the contract or the factum of its breach. The breach of the contract entitled the assessee to the remedies arising ex contractu, e.g., specific performance of the contract or damages; in the present case, the first was ruled out because the subject-matter had been sold by the vendor to a third party. The assessee was, therefore, entitled to seek compensation for the breach of the contract from Messrs K.C.P. Limited. In about April, 1971,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-19-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Guj62; (1986)1GLR77
ORDER1. This Revision Application raises an interesting question of law as regards the jurisdiction of Courts in India to entertain an application for filing a foreign award under section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Foreign Awards Act' for the sake of brevity). The petitioners of this Revision Application were respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1984, while respondent No. 1 in this Revision Application was the petitioner in that arbitration petition. Respondent No. 2 in this Revision Application was respondent No. 3, while respondent No. 3 in this Revision Application was respondent No. 4 in the Arbitration petition. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the respective parties by their respective positions in the original Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1984.2. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of this Revision Application may be briefly stated as follows: -M/s. Brace Transpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-29-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Guj162; (1985)2GLR1264
Majmudar, J.1. The present first appeal has been filed by the original defendant No. 3 against whom special civil suit No. 27 of 1972 was filed in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Surendranagar. Respondent No. 1 society was the plaintiff and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively. The said suit was filed for recovering Rs. 51,296.45 as principal amount and Rs. 12,054.55 as interest at this rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization from the concerned defendants including the present appellant defendant No. 3. The suit came to be decreed by the learned trial Judge who held respondent No. 1 society plaintiff to be entitled to Rs. 57,300/with proportionate interest and. cost on Rs. 51,296/- at the rate of 6% per annum from all the defendants jointly and severally. The present appellant original defendant No. 3 being aggrieved by the said decree has come in appeal before this Court. So far as other defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-13-1985
Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Guj)252; [1987]163ITR378(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee, a registered firm, is engaged in manufacturing and selling cotton yarn prepared from cotton waste. In the assessment year 1970-71, it paid an amount of Rs. 37,328, each payment exceeding Rs. 2,500 otherwise than by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or a crossed bank draft contrary to sub-section (3) of section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), to Messrs Manubhai and Company, Bombay, towards the price of cotton waste purchased from that company. The Income-tax Officer for reasons stated in paragraphs 5(A) to 5(E) of his order came to the conclusion that these payments fell within the mischief of sub-section (3) of section 40A of the Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the view of the Income-tax Officer so far as this question is concerned for reasons stated in paragraphs 4 to 6 of his order. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal but in vain. Thereupon the assessee sought reference under sub-sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-01-1985
Reported in : [1986]161ITR99(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, is engaged in the manufacture of machinery spare parts since November, 1967. The partnership then consisted of two adults and two minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Minor, Chandrakant Ambalal, attained majority on January 31, 1970, which necessitated a change in the constitution of the firm. Accordingly, the firm was reconstituted under the partnership deed of February 2, 1970, annexure 'F', to the statement of the case. According to this partnership deed, three adults, namely, (1) Ambalal Khodidas; (2) Kashiben Khodidas and (3) Chandrakant Ambalal, constituted the firm with minor, Manubhai Ambalal, admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The minor was given 20 ps. share in the profits with no liability to share the losses. The rest of the 80 ps. were divided amongst the three partners, Ambalal taking 30 ps. in a rupee and the other two partners 25 ps. each. However, so far as the liability to sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-28-1985
Reported in : (1986)1GLR688
R.J. Shah, J.1. The petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) in the above petition has challenged the order of detention dated 5th August 1985 passed against him under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Ordinance, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. The grounds of detention, Annexure 'C, which also bear the same date and which were in Gujarati were supplied to the detenu in English rendering of the said grounds so far as is relevant is as follows:You are carrying on an anti-social activity by stocking, possessing and selling illicit liquor in Chamanpura area of the City of Ahmedabad. In this connection, offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 have been registered against you as stated below and in respect of which you had been arrested. (Serially 7 offences have been listed)You are therefore known as a person dealing it illicit liquor.Because of your such activity an atmosphere...
Tag this Judgment!