Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-1978
Reported in : (1979)1GLR71
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following three substantial questions of law as formulated by this Court arise in this Second Appeal:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the suit instituted by the respondent was liable to be dismissed, so far as the claim made by the amended plaint was concerned, for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order dated August 28, 1968, Ex. 77, made by and in the name of the President by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, was not shown to have been made on valid authority?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order, Ex. 77, was void being in violation of the rules of natural justice?2. In order to appreciate the issues raised in the above questions, it would be profitable to advert shortly to a few facts which have ultimately resulted in this s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Guj130; (1978)GLR895
ORDER1. This is a petition by a citizen of India, claiming to be an agriculturist in Bulsar District and also claiming to be a voter in his capacity as a member of the Managing Committee of one co-operative society. The dispute which has, been raised pertains to the election of 8 agriculturists to the Agricultural produce Market Committee Valsad. The term of the Committee was to expire somewhere in June 1976 and so 3-6-1976 was fixed as a date for general elections of the said Market Committee. For the purpose of S. 11 Of ths Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act,' a voters list of the members of the managing committee of co-operative societies (other than co-operative marketing societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market area was required to be Prepared. One authorised person was appointed and he had prepared the list and had published it on 29-3-1976. In that list, 469 voters were notified. They were as per S. 11(1) clause (i) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Guj96
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr. justice P.D.Desai in Special Civil Application No. 1543 of 1973. The question which has been raised is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. In order to examine this question, it is necessary to note a few facts and to determine the nature of the order which was challenged before him and the jurisdiction which he exercised.2. On 30th Nov. 1968, Gariadhar Gram Panchayat passed a resolution selecting a tax. On 26th Dec. 1968 the panchayat published a public notice and invited objections, if any, to the tax which it had selected for imposition. On 24th Jan. 1969 the original petitioner lodged objections before the panchayat. On 12th Feb. 1969 the gram samba unanimously decided to impose the entertainment tax. The objections lodged by the original petitioner were obviously rejected. On 1st March 1969 the imposition of the tax was notified. The original petitioner felt the grieved by it and, therefore, filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-17-1978
Reported in : [1978]113ITR318(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the karta of Madhukar Manilal Modi, Hindu undivided family, which is assessable to wealth-tax under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The following table furnishes the particulars with regard to the returns filed by him for three different assessment years and the assessment orders passed pursuant thereto : Sr. No. Assessment year Date of filing Date of theof return assessment order1 2 3 41. 1969-70 19-09-1973 29-12-19732. 1970-71 -do- -do-3. 1971-72 29-11-1971 24-09-19732. It would appear from the particulars set our in the above table that the return for the assessment year 1971-72 was filed earlier than the returns for the previous two assessment years and that the returns for the previous two assessment years were filed on the same date. The Act provides penalty for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return within the time allowed and the minimum and maximum limits of penalty have been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-07-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Guj98; (1978)GLR1076
1. The parties to this Second Appeal were married in village Sander District Mehsana according to Hindu rites, some time in the year 1961. The husband contends that they last resided together in Bhavnagar in the month of Dec. 1970 and thereafter his wife deserted him and refused to resume cohabitation. On this ground, he filed a petition No. 39/71 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter called 'the Act' for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-wife, though served with the summons of the said petition, did not enter appearance and allowed it to be disposed of ex parte. The learned Judge framed issues at Ex. 6 and came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife had, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the husband. He, therefore, granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act on 23rd August, 1971. The certified copy of the judgment in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-17-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ622
P.D. Desai, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 preferred by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and its Transport Manager (original opponents Nos. 1 and 2) is directed against the award dated Sept. 3, 1973, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 1-A, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. l-A/5 of 1973. Under the impugned award, respondents Nos. 1 and 4 to 7 (original applicants Nos. 1 and 4 to 7) have been held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 49,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till payment or realization. The said respondents were also held entitled to full costs of the claim application. Three out of the respondents, namely, respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 being minors, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- out of the awarded amount (Rs. 7000/- for each minor) was directed to be invested in the names of the minors in Government securities or in fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-21-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Guj83; (1979)0GLR306
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) Baroda directing to file the arbitration agreement contained in the contract of supply of Dec. 16, 1970 executed by and between the parties hereto since the disputes and differences had arisen in the matter of the price of supply of liquid ammonia by the defendant-Corporation to the plaintiff-Company, and for appointment of arbitrators to arbitrate upon the said disputes, and for certain other incidental relief's in the matter. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-defendant-Corporation in its proper perspective, it would be profitable to advert to a few facts which led to the suit between the parties.2. The respondent-plaintiff-Company was incorporated somewhere between June and August 1969. However, one Shri S. S. Agrawal, who happens to be the director of the plaintiff-Company, was, before the incorporation of the Company, carrying on business under the firm name and style as 'Frontier Chemical...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-13-1978
Reported in : [1987]163ITR381(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. These two references arise out of one and the same order of the Tribunal. Hence we will dispose of both the matters by this common judgment. In this case, at the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred for our opinion : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts, in holding that the payments of Rs. 48,939 made to M/s. Manubhai & Co. of Ahmedabad are not covered by rule 6DD(j)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. The following question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue. 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the payments of Rs. 9,791 made to M/s. Yogeshchandra & Co. of Bombay are covered by rule 6DD(j)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 3. The facts leading to these two references are as follows : 'We are concerned with assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is a registered firm which derives income from a spinning mill. It purchases cotton waste and manufactures yarn which i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-20-1978
Reported in : (1979)1GLR732
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals, one by the State of Gujarat and the other by the Gandhidham Municipality, are directed against the judgment of our learned brother S.H. Sheth, J. in a writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Special Civil Application No. 748/74, by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kandla, (hereinafter called the Board) challenging the right of the State Government to recover non-agricultural assessment in the sum of Rs. 56,06, 400/- for the revenue years 1963-64 to 1970-71 in respect of lands vesting in the Board by virtue of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Major Port Trusts Act (Act XXXIII of 1963). Questions of some complexity arise in these appeals and they shall have to be determined in the light of the material facts set out hereunder.2. The Maharao of Kutch was the ruler of the Indian State of Kutch. He conceived of the idea of developing a port at Kandla and translated it into action so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-13-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Guj149; (1979)0GLR268
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. The question that has been referred to this Full Bench is as follows:-'Whether the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Revn. Appln. No. 517 of 1972 decided on 27-1-1977 (since reported as Zabuben Devji v.. Mansukhlal Bhagwandas : AIR1978Guj36 is affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1977]1SCR996 (Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. Kunhaliumma))? The facts giving rise to this special civil application may be shortly stated: These proceedings arise out of an execution application filed for the execution of an award in Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act Application No. 2832 of 1949. This award was made on July 19, 1951. Under the award, the judgment-debtor had to pay an aggregate amount of Rupees 3651/- by seven yearly instalments of Rs. 525/- each. The first instalment was to be paid on or before Vaisakh Sudi 2, Sainvat Year 2008, and the subsequent instalments were to be paid on Vaisakh Sudi 2 of every year thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!