Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1982]51STC88(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee in Sales Tax Reference No. 12 of 1978, the following question is referred to us for our opinion under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act' for the sale of brevity) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that tarpaulins are not prepared from cotton fabrics or textile fabrics, and therefore, their sales amounting to Rs. 31,775 are not covered by entry 18(a) of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as contended by the applicant but are covered by entry 13 of Schedule III to the said Act as held by the sales tax authorities ?' 2. The question arises in the following circumstances : The assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is from 6th May, 1970, to 31st March, 1971. The assessee is a dealer reselling cotton canvas cloth, hosiery, rain coats, eyelets, tarpaulins, etc. In the course of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj39
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench of seven Judges is necessitated because a question has arisen whether a decision given by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Bombay High Court in Bhuta v. I.Lakdu, 21 Bom LR 157 (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) lays down the correct law. The point which has been referred to us for our opinion is, whether the procedure applicable in case of difference of opinion amongst Judges constituting a Division Bench where they are equally divided in opinion in the decision of an appeal from a subordinate Court is governed by section 98. sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench of five Judges has taken the view in 21 Bom LR 157 = (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) that in such a case. section 98, subsection (2) applies and not Clause 36 and this view taken by five Judges of the Bombay High Court is assailed in the present reference. The reference has been made by J. M. Sheth and B. K. Mehta, JJ. on a difference...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)1GLR824
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, an officer of the Bank of India, challenges by this Special Civil Application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order of the disciplinary authority, annexure `F', dated 28th June 1983, under which penalty of removal from the services was given and further orders annexures `H' & `J' of the Appellate Authorities, dated 24th October 1983 and 7th June 1984, respectively, under which the order annexure `F' was confirmed.2. The petitioner was removed from the services after holding full fledged departmental inquiry. The petitioner was given detailed chargesheet vide memo dated 10th August 1982, to which the petitioner has submitted his reply. After completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority, who after considering the same and other record, under the order dated 28th June 1983, ordered for removal of the petitioner from services. It is not in dispute that alongwith the order of respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)3GLR673
H.H. Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the original defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 236 of 1993, which is still pending on the file of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, at Ahmedabad challenging an order dated 24-2-1994 passed below application Exh. 5 in the aforesaid suit.2. The original defendant No. 1 is the appellant, while plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (For the sake of convenience parties will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff and respective defendants).3. The facts leading to this Appeal From Order in a nutshell are as follows : or about 29-7-1993, original plaintiff filed aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 236 of 1993 against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 mainly for following reliefs : [a] A decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 2 to grant a necessary permission under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR886
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri M.I. Hava, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Shri N.D. Gohil, learned A.G.P., for the State. Heard.2. Present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereunder the petitioner claiming to be a public charitable trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, proposes to challenge the order passed by the Competent Authority/Agricultural Lands Tribunal, order passed by the appellate authority and the Revenue Tribunal in revision.3. Short facts necessary for disposal of the present matter are that the petitioner filed a return before the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. At the time of hearing, it was observed that the petitioner was entitled to 27 Acres of land while it was holding more than 105 Acres, excess land was declared surplus. The matter was taken in appeal and the matter was remanded back. It was thereafter held by the Competent Authority that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj114; (2000)2GLR1272
ORDERA.M. Kapadia, J.1. In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners who have applied for admission to the First Year Homeopathy course under the Centralised Admission System in the Homeopathy Colleges all over the State, have challenged;(a) the policy decision taken by the State Government vide Resolution dated 16-6-1999 with regard to the First Year Admission for the degree course in Homeopathy Medicines laying down the eligibility criteria for the aforementioned admission as being 50% marks in 12th standard (Science stream). (b) The additional requirement of passing Higher Secondary Examination (Science stream) with mathematics as one of the subjects with condition of 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology; (c) Petitioner of Spl.C.A. No. 6346/99 belongs to Baxi Panch and hence relaxation in the qualification must be granted to the petitioner; 2. Before highlighting the nature of the controversy posed for determination in this Spl.C.As few but releva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC66; 2006(195)ELT267(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1 The learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the prayer clause of the petition. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out immediately.2 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order No. C II/1410/WZB/2003 dated 11,6,2003/17.6.2003 (Annexure-J), Order No.M-5/C-IV/WZB/2004 dated 12.3.2004 (Annexure-L), OIA No. COMMR(A)/386/VDR/98 dated 25.3.1998 (Annexure-H) and OIO No.D/84/ANK/ADC/P&V;/96-97 dated 27.2.1997 (Annexure-F) whereby Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has upheld the order of Commissioner of Appeals denying the modvat credit of Rs. 3,57,997/- to the petitioner.3 Rule. Mr.Jitendra Malkan waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj203; (2008)2GLR1559
ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.Important issues have been raised for the adjudication by this Court, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, viz.:(I) Whether the third parry is entitled to get, written notice, of request of applicant (who is seeking information), so as:(i) to allow/permit the third party to treat the information (relating to or supplied by the third party) as confidential, if so far not treated as confidential; and(ii) to oppose the disclosure of such information i.e. information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to be read with Section 7(7) of the Act 2005.(II) Whether the third party is entitled to get an opportunity of personal hearing before disclosure of information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : LC2008(3)192
K.A. Puj, J.1. The appellant-original plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the interlocutory order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court below injunction application Exh. 5 in Civil Suit No. 04 of 2005 whereby the injunction as prayed for was refused.2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a well reputed manufacturer and seller of synthetic ropes, twines and yarns, nettings and various rope products including Geosynthetic products and systems. One of such products manufactured and sold by the appellant is known as Synthetic Rope Gabion, referred to as SRG Invention in the plaint of the suit. The SRG invention is primarily used for the preservation of riverbanks, seashores, seacoasts etc., particularly to prevent erosion caused by natural processes. Long back since 1983, the appellant has been having a well equipped Research and Development ('R&D;') unit undertaking R&D; in the fields of interests to the appellant including Geosyntheti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)1GLR89
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. This petition is essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 20th September, 1994 in Revision Application No. TEN-B.A. 9/1994. Vide the said judgment the Tribunal has allowed the Revision Application of the present respondent and has set aside the judgment of the Deputy Collector, (Appeals), District Kheda at Kheda.1.1. According to the petitioners, they were inducted on the land bearing Survey No. 254 of village Vadod in Taluka Anand, District Kheda admeasuring 0.24 gunthas in the year 1972 and since then they have been cultivating the said land. It is their say that their names were entered into the revenue records maintained by the Revenue authorities in the year 1979-80. It is further stated by the petitioners that proceedings under Section 32O of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) were initiated in view...
Tag this Judgment!