Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj283; 1965CriLJ743
Vakil, J. (1) This petition is directed against the order passed by thee Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, removing the petitioner from the police force. The petitioner was appointed by the District Superintendent of Police, District Surat, to the post of a police constable in the year 1948. In 1953 in the ordinary course of service, he was transferred to the City of Ahmedabad. In August 1959, he suffered from kidney trouble and was advised to have himself operated and was operated in the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad in September 1959. The first operation was a failure. According to the petitioner, it had so happened because there was negligence on the part of the authorities of the Civil Hospital. He was advised to undergo a second operation. He was released from the Civil Hospital on the 31st (sic) of September 1959. Having lost confidence in the management and the staff of the Civil Hospital, the petitioner applied to the District Superintendent of Police to permit him to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)0GLR156
Bhagwati, J. 1. The petition raises the question of validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, as amended by the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961, and the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1962. 2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It is carrying on business of manufacturing cotton textiles and owns a factory situated in Ahmedabad. In its balance sheet for the year 1961 it showed as one of its liabilities a sum of Rs. 4,38,987 under the heading 'sundry creditors.' This amount included Rs. 2,37,863.85 which was made up of wages earned by the workmen in the factory but remaining undrawn by them and bonus for which no claim was made by the workmen within the prescribed time to earn the same under the condition of eligibility laid down in the relevant bonus agreements or awards and represented the total of such assumed liability from year to year eve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR717
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate direction, order or writ for quashing and setting aside a notification dated 18th August 1961 purporting to acquire certain land belonging to the petitioners. The principal point involved in the petition raises a question as to the validity of Section 3(4) of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioners' Act) and two notifications issued by the State Government under that section, one dated 5th September 1958 and the other dated 22nd September 1958, but there are also several subsidiary points taken in the petition and in order to understand and appreciate them, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the petition in some detail.2. The petitioners are owners of a certain property known as 'China Baug' bearing Survey Nos. 348B and 349 situate at Dariapur Kazipur, Ahmedabad. The said property is situate on the bank of the river Sabarmati and adjoins a vast area of open ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR500
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. This is a group of twenty-three writ petitions, each of which is filed by a landholder in the city of Ahmedabad, challenging in each the validity, on the ground that a few sections of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Bombay Act No. 59 of 1949 (hereafter called the Corporations Act), are ultra vires, of a notice or notices issued by the Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereafter called the Municipal Commissioner) under Section 212 of the Corporal ions Act, requiring each property-holder to show cause why his building or buildings or a part or parts thereof, which were within the regular line of a public street, should not be pulled down and the land within the said line acquired by him. The facts giving rise to these petitions are the same in a majority of cases and are similar in others, and a majority of the questions of law raised in each of the petitions is the same and the other questions of law are simila...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR729
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These petitions challenge the validity of acquisitions made by the Government of Gujarat for the construction of Gandhinagar, the new capital of Gujarat. The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical barring only the difference in the survey numbers of the lands sought to be acquired and the dates of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring such lands and it will, therefore, be sufficient to state the facts of Petition No. 1003 of 1965 which has been heard as the main petition and in which the arguments have been principally advanced. The petitioner in this petition owned at all material times several lands bearing different Survey numbers situate in village Pethapur, Taluka Gandhinagar, District Gandhinagar. By a notification dated 10th March 1965 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government notified that the said lands were likely to be needed for the public purpose, namely, construction of proposed G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR1017
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who was a Judge of this Court challenges in this petition the order of his transfer dated May 27, 1976 at Annexure 'A'. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under.2. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court on January 28, 1946. He practised at Bombay since his enrolment until April 30, 1960 and on the formation of the Gujarat State, he shifted his legal practice to this High Court where he practised till April 22, 1969. On April 23, 1969 he was appointed a Judge of the Gujarat High Court for a period of two years and was appointed a permanent puisne Judge on August 5, 1970. The petitioner' would retire on completion of the age of 62 years on January 5, 1981 and so, a period of about four years and six months was left for him to retire from service.3. The petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order to the Andhra Pradesh High Court without obtaining his consent, without consulting him and agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)22GLR596
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This petition raises a number of questions of law of wide importance under The Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976, which came into force on 15th August 1976. The Act wiped off the debts of certain categories of 'debtors' and scaled those of certain other categories Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be 'marginal farmers' or 'small farmers' within the meaning of those expressions assigned to them under the Act and applied to the Debt Settlement Officer for extinguishment of the debt which they owed to the petitioner. It is alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 sold off survey No. 368 on 12th August 1977 that is to say, after the Act came into force. On 14th December 1978, the Debt Settlement Officer held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were 'small farmers' on the appointed day within the meaning of that expression assigned to it under the Act and therefore, were 'debtors' within the meaning of the Act. After having considered the merits of the case, he declared that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1985ACJ867; AIR1984Guj69
Majmudar, J.1. These two first appeals arise out of one and the same judgment delivered by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad on 8-12-1980 where by the original claims in special civil suit No. 272 of 1976 for damages came to be partly decreed against the original defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 out of which original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and (sic) are the appellants in first appeal No. 637 of 1981 while the plaintiff in his turn is the appellant in cross appeal No.1189 Of 1981 wherein he claims larger damages against the concerned defendants. As the plaintiff as well as contesting parties are appellants in cross appeals, we will refer to the parties as the plaintiff and defendants in the same sequence in which they were arraigned 'before the trial court for the sake of convenience in the later part of this judgment. 2. x x x x 3. I. In order to appreciate the main grievance of the contesting parties in the present appeals, it is necessary to note a few relevant fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1986)2GLR910
B.K. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Since these two petitions, first at the instance of 33 aggrieved workmen challenging the closure of Bakubhai Mangaldas Institute of Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'), and second at the instance of the said Institute challenging the award of arbitration under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directing reinstatement of 33 workmen-respondents Nos. 2 to 34 of the said petition, raise common questions of law and facts, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate these questions in proper perspective, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of these two petitions.2. B.M. Institute is a non-profit, research, service and training organisation interested broadly in preventive mental health services. It was originally founded as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1966. It was also registered as a public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1986)54CTR(Guj)272; (1987)1GLR3; [1986]162ITR28(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since common question of law and facts arise in these two petitions, we intend to dispose of them by this common judgment, though we will shortly set out the relevant facts and circumstances in which the respective petitioners have moved these petitions challenging the validity of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been placed on the statute book by the Finance Act. 1984, with effect from April 1, 1985, and rule 6G as well as Forms Nos. 3CA to 3CE of the Income-tax (Amendment) Rules, 1985, promulgated on January 31, 1985, and made effective from April 1, 1985, and section 271B providing for penalty for not getting the accounts audited broadly on the ground of the impugned provisions being violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and, consequently, therefore, praying for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the said provisions. 2. Special Civil Application No. 2068 of 1985 has been moved by two registered asso...
Tag this Judgment!