Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)1GLR616
M.S. Parikh, J.1. The five petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 4131 of 1994 have prayed for an appropriate direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 for issuance of 'No Objection Certificates' to the petitioners so as to enable them to obtain admission in 2nd M.B.B.S. course in Smt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad run by the respondent No. 3 through its Dean - respondent No. 2. xxx xxx xxx xxx2. The stand of the Government can be visualised in Civil Application No. 1047 of 1994 in Special Civil Application No. 4131 of 1994 praying for vacating the ad-interim relief granted on 8-4-1994 in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, in the matters pertaining to the transfer of the students from one college to another college there are statutory rules and the guidelines framed by the Medical Council of India. Such guidelines or rules are statutory in nature and referable to Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The validity of such guidelines has been upheld by the Hon'ble Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)2GLR830
R.J. Shah, J.1. In all the above petitions, common questions arise. The petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to the present group of petitions, broadly speaking, are as under:The petitioners are Unarmed Head Constables. The next promotional post in the case of the petitioners is that of Sub-Inspector of Police. Instruction 61(1) contained in the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975, Vol. I, Administration (First Edition), it is provided 'inter alia' as under:61. Unarmed Police Sub-Inspectors:(1) Sub-Inspectors are recruited direct by competitive examination and by promotion of Officers from the lower ranks. 50 per cent of the appointments on the sanctioned cadre of Sub-Inspectors are filled by direct recruitment. Half of the remaining 50 per cent posts are filled by promotion of Officers from the lower ranks and the other half by promotion of Head Constables on passing the Sub-Inspector' course at the Police Training School.Instruction 165(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)22GLR712
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Gujarat under Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (herein-after refened to as the Act), discontinuing the Commission which the State Government had appointed on September 9, 1979 under Section 3 of the Act.2. It may be pointed out that the notification under Section 7 was issued on March 17, 1981 but the petition was filed on the same day earlier on 17th March 1981. The petition was filed on the basis that the Government was about to issue the said notification under Section 7 and in the petition as originally framed, the prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order permanently restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from winding up or obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the Commission. Prayer (B) was to quash and declaretde notification or order, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Guj)134
R.K. Abichandani, J.This group of 32 matters has been argued together having regard to the nature of controversy and the common questions of law involved, which are as under:I. Questions of law involved in these appeals :In Tax Appeal No. 273 of 2002'(1) Whether the usance interest paid by the assessee apart from the purchase price of the ship would fall within the scope of definition of term 'interest' under section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source from a usance interest paid to a non-resident under section 195(1) of the Act ?(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that usance interest partakes the character of purchase price and, therefore, not liable to deduction at source under section 195(1) of the Act ?(4) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in allowing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)2GLR464
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This group of 52 appeals arises out of as many suits filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. They were filed by shareholders of corporate employers in which they challenged the vires of Sections 3 and 6A of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat) Rules, 1962. They contended that the aforesaid provisions were ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the suits were instituted in 1975 and others were instituted in 1976. No evidence was led in the suits. They were decided on the basis of legal arguments advanced before the learned trial Judge. On 2nd September 1978, they were decided by the learned trial Judge by a common judgment. He turned down the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suits. Decrees passed by him in all the suits are challenged by the plaintiffs in these appeals.2.Before we enter upon the examination of the contentions raised by the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR574
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises situate on Dudheshwar Road Ahmedabad. The premises consist of a structure known as Chhagan Kishor Iron Factory. It appears that from 1931 the defendant was in possession of the premises as a tenant of the plaintiffs. A deed of lease was executed by the between the plaintiffs and the defendant on 28 the November 1942 whereby a lease of the premises was granted by the plaintiffs to be defendant for a period of five years from 1st February 1942 at the rent and on the terms and conditions contained in the deed of lease. There was some dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiffs were the lessors under the deed of lease or whether the lessors were Dhirajlal Khushaldas and Company Agents of the plaintiffs. I shall discuss this aspect of the matter later but for the purpose of the present narration I shall proceed on the basis t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1981Guj15; (1981)0GLR206
Sheth, J.1. The Petitioner is the Executive Trustee of Consumer Education and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the 'Centre' for the sake of brevity) at Ahmedabad. He has filed this petition as a citizen of India and also in his capacity as the Executive Trustee. The Centre published a study entitled 'A fraud on policy-holder'. It is not disputed that it was a scientific research made into the working of the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for the sake of brevity). This study tried to portray and establish the discriminatory practices which the Corporation is alleged to have adopted and which adversely affect a large number of policy-holders their investment policies, their expense ratio, availability of term insurance and other cognate matters. Mr. N. C. Krishnan who is a Director of the Corporation wrote a reply to it. His reply was published in The Hindu on 6th November 1978. In that reply, he tried to challenge the conclusions reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1984)2GLR1244
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this group of Special Civil Applications the co-operative societies of diverse nature such as primary societies as well as federal societies extending service and credit facilities, producer societies banking societies rendering banking services at urban, district and State level, sales and purchase unions at taluka, district and State level, challenge the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act of 1981) and the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act of 1982) by which the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act) has been substantially amended. Since challenge to these two amending Acts in all these Special Civil Applications is almost on identical grounds and the main contentions urged by the Learned Counsel appearing in these matters are also identical, we propose to dispose of the enti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj48; (1990)1GLR82
ORDER1. For the disciplinary action and punishment of dismissal removal or rustication of a student, whether the principles of natural justice should be observed or the fair play only will suffice, in case of the relationship of a pupil and the master of the education institution governed by the contract of admission and not by the statutory provisions? Whether such disciplinary authority is quasi judicial or only administrative authority? Whether the show cause notice containing the allegations against the pupil should be served before imposing penalty of rustication on the student? What should be the contents of such notice? Whether the order imposing the punishment should be speaking order? are some of the questions touching the students class and educational institutions, required to be considered in this petition under Art. 226, Constitution of India, challenging the order rusticating the petitioner from the Engineering College, for the period of three years and also dismissing hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR537
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. I entirely agree with my brother Divan J., but in view of the importance of the question involved, I would like to add a few words of my own in regard to the last contention of the petitioners that the Court-fees levied on an application for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not a fee but a tax and Article 15 of the First Schedule to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, which provides for levy of such court-fees is, therefore, outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It was common ground between the parties, and in any event it cannot now be disputed in view of a recent decision given by the Supreme Court on 1lth November 1972 in Civil Appeal No. 293 of 1967 : The Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department v. Zenith Lamp & Electrical Ltd., (yet unreported) : [1973]2SCR973 that it' Court-fee levied under Article 15 of the First Schedule is a tax and not a fee, it would be beyond the competence of the State Legi...
Tag this Judgment!