Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-26-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Guj83; (1997)1GLR362
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. Is human blood a 'drug'? AND Are Pathologists tapping blood from human beings manufacturing 'drug' so as to incur liability to obtain licence under Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?are the questions posed for consideration of this court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by some of the Pathologists and Association of Pathologists.2. The respondents, namely, the Director of Food and Drugs has by notices, dated 8th July, 1983 called upon the petitioners individually to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for breach of Section 18(c) of the said Act inasmuch as they have been carrying on the activities of tapping blood, collecting the blood and of selling the blood for which licence is required'under Section 18(c) of the said Act and since such activity was being carried on by them without obtaining licence, actions were required to be taken against them. The issuance of such notice to various pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-10-1996
Reported in : (1997)1GLR10
S.D. Dave, J.1. In this Intra-Court Appeals, we are concerned with the decision rendered by the learned single Judge (Our esteemed Brother M.R. Calla, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 3601 of 1994 with Special Civil Application 12921 of 1994 (Reported in 1995(2) GLR 1178, S.S. Murthy v. State of Gujarat) decided on 9th/10th March, 1995.2. The said Special Civil Applications came to be allowed with the directions as under:(i) The Chief Justice may consider the anomaly in the matters of pay scales of the Private Secretaries to the High Court Judges and the Private Secretaries attached to the officers drawing pay at Rs. 8000/- in the Government Secretariat and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, may consider as to what pay scales should be prescribed for the holders of the posts of Private Secretaries to the High Court Judges.(ii) In case the Chief Justice decides and prescribes that the pay scale of the Private Secretaries to the High Court Judges should be the pay sca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-02-1996
Reported in : [1997]225ITR936(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This case pertains to asst. yr. 1980-81. The assessee is a doctor and is specialist of radiology. He also operates an x-ray clinic of his own where the x-ray films are also exposed of the patients for which charges are required to be paid by the persons coming there. From the profit and loss account it is apparent that the assessee has shown the charges received from customers for exposing x-ray films as 'x-ray revenue' by deducting the total expenditure including the raw-films, other materials, salary and emoluments paid to staff and other expenses in connection with the running of the clinic, including interest on loans etc. It has not been shown as an income from fees. The assessee had, during that year purchased an x-ray machine. Apart from claiming depreciation thereon, the assessee also claimed investment allowance on the cost of acquisition of that x-ray machine under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time. The ITO was of the view that s....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-13-1996
Reported in : (1996)3GLR416
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellants, in this group of three appeals, have challenged the orders dated 29th March 1996 below Exs. 5 and 6 in Civil Suit Nos. 4913 of 1995, 5105 of 1994 and 5106 of 1994 passed by the Auxiliary Chamber Judge, Court No. 18, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge has vacated the ad-interim injunctions granted earlier. Since the facts of these three appeals are common and the question of law involved therein is also common, they can conveniently be disposed of by this common order.2. In view of the fact that number of other suits are pending in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in respect of the same subject-matter, at the request of the learned Advocates for the parties, it was decided to hear these matters finally and the learned Advocates were heard at length.3. Civil Suit No. 4913 of 1995 has been filed by 13 shop-owners (hereinafter referred to as 'the occupiers') of the building known as Urvashi Tower, constructed on final plot No. 368 of T.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-24-1996
Reported in : (1997)1GLR412
J.N Bhatt, J.1. Whether the impugned order of the respondent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (U.L.C. Act) declaring 1,751 sq. mtrs. of land as surplus land is tainted with or suffering from the vice of non-observance of the principles of natural justice is the main issue which has come to the surface in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner had filled in Form No. 1 under Section 6(1) of the U.L.C. Act in respect of the holdings before the Competent Officer and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad who upon inquiry held by order dated 25-3-1988 that 1,751 sq. mtrs. of land was surplus land. Being dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of the Competent Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Secretary and Urban Land Tribunal, State of Gujarat, under Section 33 of the U.L.C. Act which also came to be dismissed on 31st March, 1990. Hence this petition.3. The learned Counsel for the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-06-1996
Reported in : [1996]87CompCas186(Guj)
R. Balia, J.1. These two petitions raise identical issues and are, therefore, decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners have challenged the issuance of summons to them by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI'), respondent, to appear before the Investigating Authority under section 11(3) of the SEBI Act. The contention of the petitioners is that under the provisions of the SEBI Act and under the provisions that have been referred to in the summons, the petitioners can (not ?) be called upon to furnish information nor can an enquiry be made against them. Their case is that the petitioners in both the cases are purchasers of securities, namely, shares of Mr. Madanlal B. Purohit listed on the Stock Exchange, Bombay. Merely because as investors they have dealt with those shares through stock brokers on the Stock Exchange, Bombay, they do not fall in the category of persons against whom inquiry can be instituted or from whom information can be called for or disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-24-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Guj39; (1997)1GLR256
1. The plaintiff firm filed Civil Suit No. 740 of 1975 against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 42,859.64 ps. with costs and interest on following brief facts alleged in the plaint,2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a partnership firm in which plaintiff No. 2 is one of the partners. The defendant No. 1 is the defendant No. 2's wife. The defendants had a plot of land described in the plaint. They wanted to construct building and, therefore, after some amount of communication with the plaintiffs they entered into contract with plaintiffs regarding construction of Bungalow in the said plot of land. All printed quotation/sheet with estimates and quantity as well as rates of different items of construction had been attached with the contract. On February 4, 1975 the plaintiffs sent by Registered Post the bill of cost of construction to the first defendant. The second copy of the bill was sent on February 9, 1975. As per the said bill the cost of construction came to Rs. 63,435.29 ps. However, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-17-1996
Reported in : (1996)3GLR543
M.R. Calla, J.1. This bunch of eight Special Civil Applications is based on identical facts and involve common questions of law and hence all these petitions are decided by this common judgment and order.2. Initially Special Civil Application No. 8840 of 1989 was filed jointly on behalf of 8 petitioners on 27-12-1989. On that very day, when the matter came up before the Court, leave was granted to file separate petitions for petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 and in terms of Court's order dated 27-12-1989, 7 more petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 8913 to 8919 of 1989 were filed.3. On 12-10-1990 Rule was issued in each of these petitions with the order that they will be heard with Special Civil Application No. 3522 of 1989. On the question of interim relief, it was recorded with regard to the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 8914 to 8916 of 1989 that they had already been terminated from the service with effect from 10-2-1990 and with regard to the petitioner in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-23-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Guj48; (1997)1GLR260
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. filed by the original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree of the dismissal of its suit viz. Civil Suit No. 2173/ 76, passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 13586.75 together with Costs and interest.2. The plaintiff averred that the first defendant first respondent was a person who had suffered financial hardship on account of communal riots which broke out in the city of Ahmedabad in September 6, 1969, and therefore requested the plaintiff bank to extend to him credit facilities by way of a clean loan to continue his business activities. Accordingly the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15,000/- and paid that sum to him on 5th December 1969. The first defendant at that time executed a demand promissory note for the said amount, an agreement of hypothecation and other documents in favour of the plaintiff bank, and the second defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-03-1996
Reported in : [1998]91CompCas655(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The appellant, Ashok Fashions Ltd., has filed this appeal against the order passed by the learned company judge on February 29, 1996, in Company Petition No. 25 of 1996 whereby the learned company judge, after admitting the company petition, has directed public advertisement on or before March 8, 1996, in the Gujarati daily Gujarat Samachar and the English daily Times of India. It is further ordered that the final date of hearing to be notified would be March 30, 1996. 2. The respondent herein presented a company petition before the learned company judge praying for winding up of the appellant-company as in spite of statutory legal notice under the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the appellant to pay the principal sum of Rs. 1,69,290 together with interest thereon at the agreed rate of 24 per cent. per annum the company has failed to honour the same. In the company petition, the respondent herein made the following averments on oath : '2. The company above named, viz...
Tag this Judgment!