Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1991Guj115; (1991)1GLR667
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the Chairman in the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar for an appropriate writ, direction or order for a declaration that the respondents have no jurisdiction to ask for resignation of the petitioner from the post of Chairman of the Board and permanently restraining them from shortening or curtailing his tenure before 3 years.2. The petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board) under S. 4(1) of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Government of Gujarat vide Government Notification dated August 20, 1990, the terms and conditions of which are laid down in Government Notification dated September 10, 198 1. It is the case of the petitioner that he took over the charge of the office of the Chairman of the Board on August 21, 1990. According to the petitioner, he has been disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)2GLR1317
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30th August, 1989 at Annexure 'B' to the petition, passed by the respondent No. 2-Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad, holding that adoption by Hindus not domiciled in India is invalid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and that an order should have been obtained from the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and has prayed for a writ of mandamus on the respondents to issue passport in the name of minor Gaurangkumar Suryakant Patel, who is said to have been adopted by Suryakant Ambalal Patel.2. As per the Deed of Adoption dated 12th July, 1988, at Annexure 'A', it was declared that minor Gaurangkumar was given in adoption by performing 'Dutt Hom' ceremony on 5-7-1988 by his widowed mother, Sharmishtaben to Patel Suryakant Ambalal, resident of Main Street, Los Angeles, United States of America and his wife Sushilaben who are described as the adoptive parents of the child. As the adoptive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]85STC258(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions, a common question of vires of section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as amended by section 2 of the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990, arises for consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. In order to appreciate this common grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to not a few introductory facts : 3. I. Introductory facts : The petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). They carry on the activity of manufacturing and selling various goods in this State. For the purpose, they require raw materials which are to be used in manufacturing the end-products. The raw materials purchased by them in the State and used in the manufacturing process have been subjected to purchase tax by the impugned provisions. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1992(61)ELT447(Guj); (1991)2GLR1081
Shah, J.1. In these petitions the vires of sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. 2. Section 11B reads as under :- '11B. Claim for refund of duty. - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date : Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. (2) If on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise paid by the applicant should be refunded to him, he may make an order accordingly. (3) Where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under this Act refund of any duty of excise becomes due to any person, the Assistant Collector of Central E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1992Guj63
C.V. Jani, J.1. These seven appeals under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', arise out of a common judgment and different awards made by the learned Judge, Court No. 17, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Land Reference Cases Nos.50/79, 43/79, 44/79, 49/79, 51/7.9, 53/79 and 57/79 respectively.2. The lands under acquisition situated in Vadej were acquired for construction of houses by the Gujarat Housing Board. The notification under S. 4 of the Act dated 17-8-71 was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 2-9-197 1. It may be noted here that some other lands had already been acquired for this, very purpose under another notification under S. 4 of the Act published on 29-1-1970, but the lands involved in the present appeals had been left out. Notification under S. 6 was published in the Gazette on 25-7-1971. After issuing notices to the interested- persons and after hearing them under the relevant pro I visions of the Act, the Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1992ACJ792; (1991)1GLR650
R.D. Dave, J. 1. A commuter gets down at Rajkot Railway Station. He paces towards his office through Kothi Compound. Though a 'Fine Weather Day' a tree suddenly falls upon and kills him. The heirs of the victim sue the Rajkot Municipal Corporation for damages and that too successfully. We understand, the amount has been paid. The Rajkot Municipal Corporation appeals. The question posed is-Could the Corporation have been held liable in damages for the negligence? The ultimate answer would depend upon a few offshoots-Was there a duty to take care? Was that duty breached by the Corporation? Was there a 'reasonable foreseeability'? Could the 'risk' have been 'foreseeable' by the Corporation by resorting to a reasonable standard of care? Let us examine:2. One Jayantilal Nakum, a resident of village Padadhari, used to work at Rajkot as a clerk in the office of Director of Industries situated in the Collector's office compound. The deceased used to commute between Padadhari and Rajkot by trai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1991)2GLR1354; (1992)IILLJ486Guj
Majumdar, J.1. The petitioner-Union which is a registered Trade Union of employees working under respondent No. 2 - Company has brought in challenge in the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the order at Annexure 'A' passed by respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat in Labor and Employment Department on November 22, 1990 refusing to refer industrial disputes raised by the petitioner-Union for adjudication of the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). 2. In order to appreciate the grievances of the petitioner-Union against the impugned order, a few relevant facts leading to this petition deserve to be noted at the outset. 3. Introductory facts : The petitioner-Union has filed this petition on behalf of 579 workmen who are said to be members of the petitioner-Union. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are treated to be workmen of labour contractors. These labour contractors are joined as respondents Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)1GLR422
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The Dwarka Cement Works, a limited company and five others who are its Chairman, Directors and General Manager respectively, have by this Misc. Criminal Application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, moved this Court for quashing and setting aside the impugned order issuing process against them in Criminal Case No. 162 of 1989, by the learned J.M.F.C., Dwarka, for their alleged offences under Sections 21(4), 21(5), 31 A, 39 and 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Pollution Act').2. In short, on 23-2-1989, the respondent No. 2, viz., Gujarat Pollution Board, Rajkot, through its duly authorised officer, one Mr. A.N. Shah, Dy. Environmental Engineer, filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Dwarka, alleging that the petitioner No. 1-Dwarka Cement Works Ltd. Company had committed offences under Sections 21(4), 21(5) and 31A of the Pollution Act and that at the relevant time, the petitioner No. 2-Jati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1994
ORDERK.J. Vaidya, J. 1. Khimiben Arjanbhai -- the mother of the unfortunate deceased Rasilaben, who allegedly came to be roasted alive by her husband Ukabhai alias Haribhai, has by this Misc. Criminal Application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, moved this court praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 9-7-1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, granting anticipatory bail of the respondent-accused.2. According to the FIR filed by the petitioner-Khimiben, the incident in question wherein her daughter Rasila was burnt alive by her husband Ukabhai -- the respondent herein, within four weeks of her marriage, took place at 8-30 a.m. on 14-6-1991 at the residence of her in-laws at village Shinay, Taluka -- Anjar. According to the petitioner, the deceased Rasila who married on 17-5-1991 to the respondent who was graduate in Civil Engineering. At the time of her marriage, whatever possible within the financial means...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1992(60)ELT550(Guj)
Ravani, J.1. The petitioner company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing Glycerin and Fatty Acid claims refund of an amount of Rs. 15,32,134.08 ps. of excise duty paid during the period commencing from July 1, 1982 to January 27, 1985 inter alia on the ground that the duty was paid under mistake of law and therefore it is entitled to restitution and also on the ground that the tax could not have been levied and collected in contravention of the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner manufactures three different varieties of Glycerine, namely, (i) Glycerine Mono Stearate SE (10); (ii) Glycerine Mono Stearate SE; and (iii) Glycerine Mono Stearate NSE. The petitioner as well as the department considered the aforesaid articles to be falling under Tariff Item No. 68, i.e. not elsewhere specified, of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short). Therefore the petitioner paid excise duty on the basis that th...
Tag this Judgment!