Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-06-1988
Reported in : (1989)1GLR80; (1994)IIILLJ1020Guj
Ahmadi, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated January 30, 1985 dismissing the petitioner's application preferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the I.D. Act'). Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:2. The Board of Directors of Ashok Mills Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, passed a resolution dated May 17, 1950 to sell a certain parcel of its land to the three incorporated companies, namely, Arvind Mills Ltd., Arun Mills Ltd., and Ashok Mills Ltd., for the construction of a joint Hospital for the employees of the said three Mill Companies. The possession of the said parcel of land was delivered in 1953 for carrying out the above objective and a formal deed of conveyance was executed later on December 28, 1953 whereby the said parcel of land was sold to the said three Mill Compani...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-1988
Reported in : (1988)1GLR589
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The Gujarat State Legislature enacted the Gujarat Mineral Rights Tax Act, 1985 (Gujarat Act 19 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act' or 'the impugned Legislation') to provide for the levy and collection of tax on mineral rights of holders of mining leases in respect of certain minerals in the State of Gujarat specified in the Schedule. The Act received the assent of the Governor of Gujarat on 2nd August, 1985 and was first published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 3rd August, 1985. By a notification dated 29th October, 1985 issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, the State Government brought the Act into force with effect from 1st November, 19852. The petitioners of this group of Writ Petitions arc holders of mining leases granted by the State of Gujarat under provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act, 67 of 1957) (hereinafter called 'the Central Act') read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-1988
Reported in : (1988)2GLR1282
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The appellant herein was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1984. The said suit was for granting mandatory injunction requiring the appellant herein to remove the construction he has put in before filing of the suit and for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from putting any further construction and also restraining the appellant from obstructing the respondent herein from putting construction on the suit plan.2. It is the case of the respondent herein that the plot on which the appellant has put in construction was allotted to him by the Taluka Development Officer, Dhandhuka and that inspite of that the appellant herein had. constructed a wall in that plot. By application Exh. 5 in that said suit the respondent herein applied for temporary injunction restraining the appellant herein from putting any construction and also restraining him from obstructing the respondent herein in putting construction over the suit plot. On that Exh. 5, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-04-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Guj227; (1989)1GLR58
ORDER1. One may legitimately ask - 'why too many judgments insisting liberal approach while interpreting 'sufficient cause' occurring in S. 5 of the Limitation Act,1963?' The answer is simple and yet disappointing. It is very hard to change the dogmatic approach having its roots in old traditions and irrationality. The case on hand, provide, as an illustration as to how much difficult (almost impossible) it is to change such mental attitude and in still new thinking?2. Respondents-plaintiffs filed regular civil suit No. 176 of 1979, in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Narol for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and for reasonable and bona fide requirements. The petitioner defendant appeared in the suit. One Mr. Makwana, learned advocate engaged by the defendant filed joint vakalatnama of himself and that of another advocate Mr. Rathod. After the appearance was filed the matter was being adjourned from time to time. On Sept. 11, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-18-1988
Reported in : (1988)71CTR(Guj)145; [1988]173ITR248(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee is a public charitable trust. The assessment year under consideration is 1973-74, the corresponding previous year being the financial year 1972-73 which ended on March 31, 1973. 2. Miss Mrudula Sarabhai donated 89 ordinary shares of M/s. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. and 15 ordinary shares of Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Company Limited of the value of Rs. 2,06,592 to the assessee-trust in March, 1972. The assessee-trust received Rs. 3,636 by way of dividend in respect of the said shares in the previous year. One of the questions which arose before the Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 was whether this dividend income of Rs. 3,636 was exempt from payment of income-tax under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The other questions which arose for consideration before the Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment are not relevant for the purpose of the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-29-1988
Reported in : (1988)70CTR(Guj)185; [1988]172ITR698(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Four questions have been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. These questions read as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the provisions of section 11 of the Act, do not come in the way of the assessee as the funds were applied to charitable purposes and that application was completed when the funds were donated to other charitable trusts 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act were not applicable in the instant case 4. Whether the Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-18-1988
Reported in : (1988)2GLR1355
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this High Court allowing Special Civil Application No. 3337 of 1979. The main prayers in the Special Civil Application were: (a) declare the notice dated 2-11-1979 of termination of services of the petitioner, at Annexure 'E' as unconstitutional, being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 and null and void and quash the same; (b) direct the respondents to treat the impugned notice at Annexure 'E' as having never been issued and to treat the petitioner in the Special Civil Application to be in service as if the impugned notice has never been issued and to grant him all the benefits flowing from his continuous service; and (c) direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages.2. To appreciate the contentions of the respective parties, we have to look into certain relevant facts in this case. The Physical Research Laboratory was originally set up on November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-29-1988
Reported in : AIR1988Guj233; (1988)2GLR1192
N.B. Patel, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common order, dt. 17th June, 1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol whereby he has disposed of Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 1981 and Civil Misc. Application No. 158 of 1985. By this order, the learned Judge has allowed Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 1981 (filed by the present respondent) by accepting the award made by the Sole Arbitrator regarding the disputes between the parties arising from two contracts. Civil Misc. Application No. 158 of 1985 (filed by the appellant), urging that the award may be set aside, has been dismissed by the learned Judge. Thus, it is the composite order overruling the objections against the award and the converting of it into the rule of the Court, which is the subject-matter of these two appeals filed by the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (to be hereinafter referred to as the Board) against M/s. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. (to be herei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-24-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Guj61; (1988)2GLR1154
Gokulakrishnan, C. J.1. Two lecturers of colleges affiliated to respondent 2-University, who are also Senate Members and who claim to have no personal interest in the subject matter of the present petition, have felt constrained in the interest of high standards, norms, principles and the purity of education and educational institutions to file the present petition challenging what they claim to be arbitrary action of the respondents in the matter of procedure of appointment LCI :he pivotal office Of the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 2-University, in the matter of recommendations of the names for the said office and also regarding the functions of the Committee in the matter Of the said appointment.2. The factual background alleged by the petitioners is as under:- Since the academic and executive councils in the Gujarat University were not existing at the relevant time due to pending litigation, it had not been possible to call a joint meeting of the Executive Council and the Acade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-19-1988
Reported in : AIR1988Guj226; (1988)2GLR849
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the appellants-debtors who are partners along with respondents 7, 8 and 9 can be said to have committed any act of insolvency and could be adjudged, insolvenent. 2. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 being creditors of a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Labhshanker Joravarsinh at Limbdi had filed an Insolvency Petition No. 4 of 1970 alleging that the respondents debtors had committed acts of insolvency and therefore prayed that the six partners be adjudged insolvent.In the insolvency petition it was alleged that the defendants were carrying on business in partnership as commission agents for cotton and cotton pods and ginning and pressing cotton. It is not in dispute that originally, the partnership consisted of only two partners, namely Jorawarsinh Chandrasinh and Acharya Devshanker Jadavji having equal shares. That partnership deed dated 1-6-1964 is at Ex. 216. It also provided that in case of death of any partner, th...
Tag this Judgment!