Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-29-1993
Reported in : (1993)2GLR1368
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The question of quite great public importance, perhaps arising for the first time in the group of these 7 Criminal Revision Application in the matter of proceedings under Section 33 of the Water [Prevention & Control of Pollution] Act, 1974, mainly pertains to the interpretation of Section 33 of the Act itself and in particular that of the expression 'to desist from taking such action as is likely to cause pollution' appearing in Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Act.2. In all these matters, having regard to the common question of law involved therein and, arising out of more or less identical facts-situation, This Court at the joint request and with the consent of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Board and the learned A.P.Ps., has decided to hear and decide all of them together by this common judgment. It may be mentioned here that at the time of hearing of these matters, neither the respondents nor their learned Advocates have remained presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-02-1993
Reported in : (1993)2GLR1822
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. The respondents in Special Civil Application No. 475 of 1990 reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1460 are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioner in the Special Civil Application is the respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal. Convenience suggests that we refer to the parties as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the Special Civil Application.2. The petitioner established a cement plant at Mahuva in Saurashtra. For manufacturing cement, the petitioner requires huge quantities of coat and it is stated that they are being purchased from Bilaspur Collieries and other Collieries and the coal is transhipped by railway wagons to the site of the factory of the petitioner at Kodinar and the manufactured product of the petitioner, viz., cement, is being despatched to the various destinations by railway wagons. With regard to the inward traffic of coal and the outward traffic of cement, a controversy has arisen as to whether the petitioner could avail ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-13-1993
Reported in : (1994)1GLR481
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. The appellants in these four Letters Patent Appeals are the petitioners in the Special Civil Applications, out of which they arise. We propose to refer to the appellants as 'petitioners' in this judgment of. ours.2. The petitioners are teachers in Government Colleges. The Government Colleges are affiliated to the Gujarat University. There is no dispute that the petitioners are Government servants. As such, they would be governed by the Bombay Civil Services Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 161 of the Rules prescribes the age of superannuation of Government servants of the category of the petitioners as 58 years. The petitioners, the said Rule governing, cannot be in service beyond the age of 58 years But, they are in the field of coveting the age of 60 years for superannuation on the ground that the Government Colleges, in which they are working are affiliated to the Gujarat University,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-10-1993
Reported in : (1994)1GLR669
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner is the original plaintiff-landlord. Petitioner No. 2 is subsequently joined as an assignee of the suit premises in place of the original landlord and therefore he is added as petitioner No. 2 as per the order of this Court dated 2nd March, 1993. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were occupying the suit premises being a shop having main door abutting in the west on the station road at Chalala. As is averred in the plaint, there was a joint Hindu family of Bhanji Devji and his sons and they were the owners of the suit property since many years. They had gone with their families to Africa and said Bhanji Devji was managing the said ancestral property of the joint family. Bhanji Devji died in the year 1955. Subsequently, the joint Hindu family continued. One Babulal Devchand who was daughter's son of Bhanji Devji was managing the said ancestral property of the joint family contrary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-22-1993
Reported in : (1994)117CTR(Guj)9; [1994]210ITR950(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Ahmedabad, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B' ('the Tribunal', for short), has made the present reference to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short), as the Tribunal was satisfied that two questions of law arise out of the order passed by it in Income-tax Appeal No. 1956/(Ahd.) of 1979. 2. The reference has arisen in the background of the following facts : The assessee, Messrs. Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company, is a private limited company, which manufacturers road making machines, quarry equipments and turn-key plants. The assessee entered into two contracts with : (i) Klaus Gerd Hoes of West Germany, and (ii) Aulmnn and Neckscheulte of West Germany, on November 13, 1972, and March 26, 1973, respectively. The assessee received technical know-how for manufacture, construction and assembly of various sizes of jaw crushers, impact breakers, grinding atta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-02-1993
Reported in : [1993]204ITR774(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. On being moved by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following four questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to allow exemption in respect of dividend income from 2,070 shares of T. Maneklal Mfg. Co. Ltd. and 896 shares of SLM Maneklal Industries Ltd., which were held by the assessee on May 31, 1970, on the ground that the finding has to be sustained without going into the question as to whether exemption cannot be denied to the assessee under section 13(4) of the Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to succeed on the ground that in respect of these shares, section 13(1)(c)(ii) would have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-17-1993
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1073; (1994)ILLJ655Guj
Panchal, J. 1. Whether provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be made applicable to an application filed under S. 79(1) read with Sub-sec 3(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act') for deciding dispute regarding propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer acting or purporting to act under the Standing Orders as postulated by Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of para A of Sub-section (1) of S. 78 of the Act before the Labour Court constituted under S. 9 of the Act is the question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition may now be stated : The petitioner is a Cotton Textile Industry and is governed by the provisions of the Act. The respondent-workman was working as a permanent Patiwala in Mechanic Department of the petitioner - undertaking since December 1, 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman reported f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-21-1993
Reported in : (1993)2GLR1346
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Vadodara on 8th August, 1980 below the application at Ext. 5 in Special Suit No. 304 of 1979 is under challenged in this First Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the Act' for brief) at the instance of the original plaintiff. Thereby the learned Trial Judge accepted the original defendant's application under Section 34 of the Act and stayed the further proceedings of the suit instituted by the original appellant. 2. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of this Appeal before this court the original appellant has left for his heavenly abode and is survived by his heirs and legal representatives substituted in his place by the order passed by this court on 23rd December, 1992 in Civil Application No. 5145 of 1992. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to the parties as they were arraigned in the suit proceedings, this is, the original appellant as the plaintiff and the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-15-1993
Reported in : (1994)1GLR209
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of the shop premises bearing M.C. No. 2868-2868/1 of Kalupur, Ward No. 2-B, at Ahmedabad. One deceased Sakarchand Kasturchand was the monthly tenant of the said shop, which is hereinafter to be referred to as 'the suit shop.' The tenant-Sakarchand was let the suit shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-for business purpose, in 1961, and the tenant was using the suit shop for the purpose of running his coal business.2. The original tenant-Sakarchand had entered into a partnership with opponent No. 5, Vrujlal Vadilal, from 25th November, 1960, and it was run in the name of 'Mis. Vrujial Kiritkumar & Co.' Tenant-Sakarchand died on 28th January, 1961, Upon his death, the partnership came to be dissolved. Opponent No. 1, Lilavati is the widow of deceased -tenant and opponents No. 2 3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased-tenant. The landlord was issuing rent receipts in the name of Lilavatiben Ratilal after the demise of the original tenant. Lilava...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-15-1993
Reported in : AIR1994Guj153
Panchal, J. 1. This is a reference made under Section 54(1A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. 60 of 1958) by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, who dismissed the revision application against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, Surat imposing a duty of Rs. 27,191.50 Ps. (Rupees twenty seven thousand one hundred ninety one and fifty paise) together with a penalty of Rs. 5/- (five) on an agreement purportedly relating to deposit of title deeds, which came to the notice of the Collector of Stamps, Surat. 2. FACTS :- The applicant -- M/s. Shailesh Textile Industries is a registered partnership firm and carries on business in textile through its 7 partners. The applicant-firm wanted to avail of loan and credit facilities and, therefore, approached Dena Bank, which is a corporate Body and a nationalised bank under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Dena Bank...
Tag this Judgment!