Gujarat Court April 1961 Judgments
Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj6; (1961)GLR437; [1962]44ITR266(Guj)
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the asses-see. The assessee in this case is Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel, an individual. The relevant year of assessment is 1952-53, the relevant accounting period being 1st April 1951 to 31st March, 1952. The assessee has a wife by name Revagauri, an adult son by name Navinchandra and a minor son by name Hasmukhlal. The assessee and the members of his family had been assessed as individuals, for a number of years past. The assessee, his wife and two sons were members of a Hindu undivided family. As stated by the Income Tax Officer, there was, however, no coparcenary property. The assessee was possessed of self-acquired properties. On 18th April 1951, the assessee threw some of his self-acquired properties consisting of agricultural lands, a house and shares of limited liability companies into what is stated to be the common hotchpot of the said Hindu undivided family. This is evi...
Tag this Judgment!Dalal and Co. Vs. the Union of India Through General Manager, Western ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj15; (1962)GLR75
Raju, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay, the Area Superintendent, Western Railway, Ahmedabad and the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Western Railway, Ahmedabad.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that until the issue of a notice by the Chief Commercial Superintendent in March, 1961, if goods booked by the Railway were made available after 17 hours or 5 p.m. on any day they were treated as available for delivery on the next day, and under the rules relating to free time, the consignee was allowed free time of two clear days excluding the day on which the goods were placed in position for unloading. Under the Wharfage and Demurrage Rules, when goods consigned are ready for being unloaded and are made available for delivery, certain amount of time is given as free time. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the issue of the notice by the Chief Commercial Superintendent...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kanbi Uma Mahadeva and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR531
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The accused and the complainant are members of the Kjanbi community. The K,anbl community is divided into three sub-castes: (1) Nenava, (2) Dhaka, and (3) Dhanera. The accused and the complainant belonged to Nenava sub-caste which is also known as Waged Panch. The complainant Hira Jama and his relations also belonged to this Panch. It was said mat the 1st accused felt aggrieved against the complainant as he suspected that the complainant had given certain information to the police as a result of which the police raided his house for opium. On the 18th of April 1959, the 1st accused called a meeting of his sub-caste, viz. Vaged Panch, at his house and at that meeting the complainant Hira Jama and his relations were excommunicated by a resolution which was reduced to writing. That resolution was not produced by the accused at the trial. Witness Akbarmiya Jamiyatmiya was called at the meeting and it was he who had written out the resolution which was dictated to him at t...
Tag this Judgment!Rampyare Ramharakh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj193; 1961CriLJ763; (1961)0GLR476
Desai, C.J.1. The question that has been referred for decision to this Full Bench is the following:'Whether a statement made by an accused at the committal inquiry in answer to questions put by the Magistrate in a case in which no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution and in which the order of commitment is passed after perusing the police statements under Section 207A, Criminal Procedure Code, can be admitted as evidence under Section 287, Criminal Procedure Code?'In order to appreciate the point which arises for determination, it is necessary first to refer to the provisions of Section 287 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section provides as under: 'The examination of the accused, if any, recorded by or before the committing Magistrate shall be tendered by the prosecutor and read as evidence.' This section makes it obligatory upon the prosecutor to tender the examination of the accused, if any, which has been recorded by or be fore a committing Magistrate and the same is r...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dhiria Bhavji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj78; 1963CriLJ431; (1962)GLR503
Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was tried by the Juvenile Court at Baria, for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of his aunt Bai Vali.2. The prosecution case was that on the day of the offence i. e., on 8-7-59, the accused demanded seeds of maize from Shaku, the mother of the accused, and from Bai Jokhni and Bai Vali, the two wives of Vesta, who were then busy working in agricultural operations just near their hut; but the accused was told that there were no seeds to be spared. At that time deceased Vali went to the hut to drink water and was followed by the accused. After a few minutes, Shaku heard the sound of an axe-blow and found Vali lying on the ground with injuries on her head and she saw the accused running away. Bai Vali died soon after and the information was conveyed to the Police Station by Jokhni. In the meanwhile the accused went to the Police Station and was arrested there. Aft...
Tag this Judgment!Kuberbhai Shivdas and anr. Vs. Mahant Purshottamdas Kalyandas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR564
J.M. Shelat, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts observed: ]But it was contended by Mr. Vakil that the findings arrived at by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the entries made by him on the basis of these findings are not binding upon the plaintiffs who claim to be the beneficiaries of the trust. His contention in this respect was two-fold:(1) That those findings are only for the purposes of registration and are as between the Charity Commissioner and the 1st defendant as a trustee and that those findings and the entries made on the basis thereof do not decide any question as to the rights of third parties and(2) That a suit by such third parties is not affected by the decision of the Charity Commissioner and therefore a Civil Court would have jurisdiction to try such a suit.Mr. Vakil submitted that Sections 17 18 19 and 20 of the Act deal only with registration of public trusts and not with the rights of parties and therefore Section 80 of the Act which bars the jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda City Ice Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR56(Guj)
Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the applicant, the Baroda City Ice Co. The relevant assessment year is 1953-54, the previous year being the year commencing from August 15, 1951, and ending with August 14, 1952. 2. The applicant firm claims to be a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated August 20, 1951. The applicant applied for the registration of the firm under the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer refused to register the firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal directed that the firm be registered. The matter was carried further before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The question that arises for our consideration is the following : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax tax Officer was right in refusing to grant registration to the assessee under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokbhai Chimanbhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: (1968)0GLR78; [1962]44ITR41(Guj)
Desai, C.J.1. This reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raises an interesting question of law. The assessee in this case is the Hindu undivided family of Ashokbhai Chimanbhai. The assessment year is 1956-57, the accounting period being Samvat year 2011, i.e., the period commencing from October 27, 1954, and ending with November 14, 1955. Ashokbhai is the karta of this joint family. He has a wife by name Shobhanaben and a minor son by name Chirag. These three constitute the aforesaid joint family. At all material times, Ashokbhai was a partner in the partnership firm of Messrs. Amrit Chemicals. He had a five annas share in the partnership. This share was held by him as the manager and karta of the aforesaid Hindu undivided family. The partnership was a partnership at will. The relevant accounting year of the partnership was the calendar year 1955, i.e., the year commencing from January 1, 1955, and ending with December 31, 1955. There was a partial partitio...
Tag this Judgment!Liladhar Hansraj Vs. Shah Vallamji Khetshi of Jamnagar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj63; (1961)0GLR648
Raju, J. 1. This matter has been sent to us by the Supreme Court for a finding whether for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court the petitioner is a pauer or not. Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that when an applicant applies for leave to proceed as a pauper he must statethat he is unable to pay the necessary court-fees and that he is unable to provide security Or sureties for the costs of the respondent. Order XIII, Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that unless the Court specially directs otherwise any security for costs to be furnished by the petitioner shall be in the sum of Rs. 2500/- in cash or Government securities. If the appellant is unable to satisfy both the requirements, viz., the payment of court-fees and also provision for security or sureties for the costs of the respondent, then he will have to be treated as a pauper. The finding of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Jamnagar, is that the appellant is able to pay court-fees b...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Amratlal Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR331(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference at : the instance of the assessee under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a private limited company. The relevant assessment year is 1952-53, the accounting year being the calendar year 1951. The question that has been raised in this reference is the following : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company was a company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of the Explanation to section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it then stood ?' 2. The assessee company was incorporated on December 6, 1929. The promoters of this company were three brothers by name Jayantilal Amratlal, Ramanlal Amratlal and Hariprasad Amratlal. The issued capital of the company consisted of 750 promoters shares of Re. 1 each and 250 ordinary shares of Re. 1 each. On February 4, 1930, the first allotment of the shares was made. The promoters shares were allotted ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »