Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-31-1977
Reported in : [1977]109ITR177(Guj)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Company Petitions Nos. 10 and 12 of 1975 are filed by Wood Polymer Limited and Bengal Hotels Private Limited, respectively, under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, praying for according sanction to a scheme of amalgamation of the afore-mentioned two companies. Wood Polymer Limited is a public limited company and it is the transferee-company. Bengal Hotels Private Limited is a private limited company and is the transferor-company. The scheme submitted to the court for sanction involves amalgamation of the transferor-company with the transferee-company and amongst others it envisages dissolution of the transferor company without winding up.2. Transferor-company and transferee-company both filed separate Company Applications Nos. 40 of 1974 and 41 of 1974, respectively, requesting the court to give directions for convening meetings of the creditors and members to whom compromise and/or arrangement was offered. In the case of the transferee-company, J. B. Metha J. by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-17-1977
Reported in : (1978)0GLR108; (1979)ILLJ60Guj
D.A. Desai, J.1. This petition by a helper employed by the p1 Ahmedabad Co-operative Department Stores Limited ('employer' for short) questioned the correctness and validity of an order made by the manager of the employer on December 19, 1973 dismissing the petitioner from the service of the employer and the order made by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference I.C. No. 217 of 1974 converting the order of dismissal into one of discharge. 2. The backdrop of the case which will illuminate the issues that have been canvassed at the hearing of this petition may be briefly stated. By November 17, 1973 the petitioner was serving as a helper employed by the employer for two and half years and was assigned the work of preparing bills and weighing commodities sold to the customers in the premises of the employer. On the relevant date, that is, on November, 17, 1973 he was in receipt of a consolidated monthly wages of Rs. 145. On November 17, 1973 somewhere in the evening one customer came to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-18-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Guj46
Mehta, Ag. C.J. 1. The City Civil Court's order returning the plaint for presenting to the proper Court having been confirmed in appeal by the learned single Judge , the plaintiff has come in this appeal. The plaintiff was carrying on business in a shop in question at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff had taken out two policies at Exs. 34 and 35 for Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000 on November 28, 1968 from this insurer the Co-operative General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, whose head office was at , Hyderabad,. Now on nationalization of this insurance business under the Act, of 1972, this company has been a unit of United India Fire & General Insurance Company, which had its head office at Madras and the Branch Office is at Hyderabad. On Sept. 18, 1969, due to fire the plaintiff's shop having been burnt, the plaintiff lodged a claim of Rs. 65,000 with the original insurer on Sept. 30, 1969. The plaintiff's claim was rejected on Nov 22, 1969 on various grounds. The plaintiff gave a notice on M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-28-1977
Reported in : [1978]112ITR758(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J. 1. The assessee in this case is the Hindu undivided family of which one Dineshchandra Sumatilal is the karta. The assessment years involved are assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the relevant previous years being calendar years 1967 and 1968. 2. Dineshchandra, the karta, is the son of one Sumatilal Maganlal. It appears that Sumatilal was the permanent director of Panalal Silk Mills Ltd., along with three other persons. The articles of association of the said mill company made a provision in article 99 relating to the vacancies to be filled in the office of the permanent director. The aforesaid article 99, which is material, may be set out in extenso : '(a) If any of the said Narrottamdas Maganlal Shah, Sumatilal Maganlal Shah, Kantilal Maganlal Shah and Panalal Maganlal Shah dies whilst a member of the company and holding not less than ten share in the company as aforesaid, one of his sons to be selected by agreement between his sons or if he shall leave only one son,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-13-1977
Reported in : (1977)1GLR714
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. This group of petitions is referred to this Bench to decide the question whether it abates on the grounds mentioned in the affidavit of the respondents. These petitions were filed by the petitioner-mill companies which are cotton textile units manufacturing blended yarn which became dutiable for the first time under Tariff Item 18-E which was added on March 16, 1972 in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1,944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioners that blended yarn was coated with sizing materials to impart strength to the yarn in the weaving process in all these composite mills and in that process the weight of the blended yarn increased by some 12 to 14 per cent. It is the case of the petitioners, that blended yarn remained blended yarn even after the sizing process. The excise duty was paid on the sizing materials. In all these mills the duty was charged by the excise authorities under Tariff Item 18-E on weight basis per kilogram ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-22-1977
Reported in : (1977)18GLR848
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiffs-landlords have come in this Revision-Application as both the Courts have refused to pass the decree of eviction from the suit block after the defendant-tenant had shifted to his newly constructed bungalow on October 20, 1969.2. The short facts which have given rise to this litigation are as under. The defendant, Dr. Kantilal Shah has been a tenant in the suit house of the plaintiffs. There is a dispute as to whether the first block was given in 1946 as stated by the defendant or in 1948 as stated by the plaintiffs or whether this suit block which has been almost for all the time used as residential block was first let or after some short time as contended by the defendant. The defendant, however, had also got from time to time three other blocks in this very building. Thereafter, when in 1958 the defendant shifted to the hospital premises near Dandia Hanuman, where he had got four blocks out of which one he occupied for his residence and three for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-28-1977
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ82Guj
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner, representative-union of the Banking Industry, has filed this petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court which has reversed the order of the Labour Court reinstating the concerned clerk, Mr. Mehta, with full back wages. 2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under. Mr. J. M. Mehta, the concerned clerk, was appointed first as a daily rated clerk in the Bank on June 8, 1971 and thereafter from June 30, 1971 he was taken up as an apprentice in this opponent Co-operative Bank and thereafter by the order at Annexure 33, on September 1, 1971 with effect from September 1, 1971 he was appointed as a probationer in the relevant pay grade for a period of six months which could accordingly expire on February 29, 1972. He was posted in Kalowad Branch of the Bank as a probationary clerk. Till the expiry of the aforesaid maximum probation period fixed in this order, Ext. 33, admittedly his services were not terminated nor th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Guj102; (1977)GLR738
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. In this petition the two petitioners who were appointed as class III employees on the establishment of the Civil Courts at Rajpipla and Jambusar, in the District of Broach, by the District Judge, Broach, have challenged the final order of the District Judge along with the order of the High Court at Annexures G and H as per which they have been removed from service. The petitioners had been charge-sheeted by the District Judge on Dec. 22. 1971, for falsely identifying three persons before the then Civil Judge, Junior Division, and Judicial Magistrate, F. C. Savli, as per Ex. A. In the disciplinary enquiry which was instituted on this charge sheet at Annexure A, the petitioners had admitted the charges and prayed for mercy. The District Judge by the order dated June 5, 1974 at Annexure D. passed the order to withhold future promotions with permanent effect. The High Court, however, considered the punishment grossly inadequate and, therefore, under R. 23 of the Guja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-04-1977
Reported in : [1978]112ITR134(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is assessment year 1970-71, the relevant previous year being the financial year commencing from April 1, 1969, and dealing with March 31, 1970. The assesse, a partnership firm, is a dealer in sugar. It carries on business on wholesla e basis at Bantwa in Junagadh district. During the relevnat previous year the assessee purchased about 4,554 bags of sugar for Rs. 9,77,523. Amongst the purchases so made were included the purchases made at auctions held by two co-operative societies, viz., the Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd. at Kodinar, an the Una Taluka Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. at Una. Part of the payment of purchase price to both the said co-operative societies was made in cash. The first named co-operative society was paid purchase price in cash to the tune of Rs. 2,49,359 and the second named co-operataive society was paid purchase price in cash to the tune of Rs. 1,08,316. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-03-1977
Reported in : [1978]113ITR22(Guj)
JUDGEMENTJ. B. METHA J. - At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has posed in this reference the following three questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that once the Tribunal passed an order the matter became final with regard to the point which was settled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and was not agitated before the Tribunal unless it was taken up to the High Court ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the previous order of the Tribunal dated June 21, 1969, restoring the case to the file of the Income-tax Officer meant that the only point that was open was in respect of the addition of Rs. 19,421 and not the legal or jurisdictional aspect whether the reassessment proceedings were correctly initiated under section 147/148 ?3. Whether, on the facts, the assessee was justified at this late stage in re-agitating the matter whether the case was rightly reopened (which is purely a legal matter g...
Tag this Judgment!