Gujarat Court April 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State Vs. Karim Mamad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR643
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a criminal appeal by the State against the acquittal oi the respondent under Section 145(2)(b)(c) of the Bombay Police Act, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhoraji.2. The respondent was an unarmed Head-Constable at Dhoraji City Police Station and was suspended on 18-11-1959. The order of suspension also mentioned that his headquarters were fixed at Dhoraji during the period of his suspension, that he should not leave headquarters without the permission of the District Superintedent of Police, Rajkot District, Rajkot and that he should report daily in the morning as well as in the evening to the Police Sub-Inspector, Dhoraji City Police Station. He was also informed by the same order that he, a Police Officer, had not ceased to be such not been placed under suspension but the powers functions and privileges vested in him as a Police Officer were in abeyance for the period of suspension. On 15-1-60 the respondent was granted permission to leave the headqu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North Vs. Viramgam Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1961
Reported in: (1961)GLR588; [1961]43ITR270(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This reference has been made under section 66(1) OF THE Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad. The assessee in this case is the Viramgam Mills Co. Ltd. The relevant assessment year is 1952-53, the accounting year being the calendar year 1951. The assessee company is one in which at the relevant time the public were not substantially interested as envisaged under section 23A of the Income-tax Act. The balance-sheet of the company for the accounting year showed the paid up capital of the company as Rs. 6,98,000. On the Liabilities side of the balance-sheet there were the 'Buildings and Machinery Depreciation Fund' amounting to Rs. 6,24,948, the 'Reserve Fund' amounting to Rs. 2,20,000 and the 'Income-tax Fund in excess of requirement' amounting to Rs. 93,387, making in all Rs. 9,38,335. The sum of Rs. 6,24,948 under the heading 'Buildings and Machinery Depreciation Fund' had been carried forward from yea...
Ramchand Nihalchand Advani Vs. Anandlal Bapalal Kothari and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj21; (1961)GLR635; (1961)0GLR165
Raju, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by three persons praying for an appropriate writ to direct the first respondent, who is the President of the Baroda Borough Municipality, to desist from preventing the petitioners from acting as councillors of the Baroda Municipality.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under - The three petitioners are councillors of Baroda Borough Municipality and also members of the Sanitary Committee of the Baroda Borough Municipality. On 9-3-61, they sent a letter of resignation from the Sanitary Committee addressed to the President as a protest against the manner of implementation of the Scheme of compulsory vaccination for small-pox. This letter was treated by the President as a letter of resignation as councillors and not as a letter of resignation from the Sanitary Committee of which the three petitioners happened to be members. On 10-3-61, the President wrote a letter to the three petitioners acknowledging receipt of ...
Prabat Laxman and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj51; (1962)0GLR96
Raju, J. 7. (The conviction of accused Nos. 1 2, and 6 are challenged in appeal, and the State also challenges the finding of acquittal of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8.) 22. (Now we will turn to appeal by the State against the acquittal of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. We have already given reasons for agreeing with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that this is not a case of unlawful assembly nor a case where all the eight accused were actuated by common intention, to cause the murder of Ruda. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in not imputing any constructive liability to accused Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8 in regard to the deaths of Ruda, Punja and Vira, and it is also not the case of the prosecution that these accused caused any fatal injuries to any of the deceased persons. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in acquitting accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in respect of the charge relating to the deaths of Ruda, Punja and Vira. But, the learned Assistant Govern...
Rinarbai Rambhad and ors. Vs. State of Bombay (Now the State of Gujara ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj18; (1961)2GLR594
J.M. Shelat, J. 1. Mr. Nanavati, however, pointed out that the State Legislature has also enacted the Bombay Land Tenures Abolition (Recovery of records) Act, 1953, being Act L of 1953, under which a notice has been issued to the appellants to deliver up to the Collector or to an officer appointed by the State Government in that behalf all the land records relating to these villages and lands maintained by them so far. Mr. Nanavati argued that the State was not entitled to call upon the appellants to deliver up these records as Act L of 1953 was not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and that even if it were to be so, calling upon the appellants to deliver up the records would amount to acquisition or deprivation, within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and would he contrary to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). Such deprivation would be bad in law as it is sought to be made without any compensation payable to the appellants un...
Maharaja Salt Works Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR107(Guj)
Desai, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is the Maharaja Salt Works Co. (Private) Limited. The relevant assessment year is 1950-51. The total income of the company for this assessment year was computed at Rs. 5,42,469. The company declared a dividend for the assessment year amounting to Rs. 1,17,200. The assessee claimed that it was entitled to a rebate of one anna in a rupee amounting to Rs. 12,805 under clause (i) of the proviso to paragraph B of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1953. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow this rebate. The assessee went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal without any success. The assessee thereupon applied to the Tribunal for station a case and making a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal has made this reference raising the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant i...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North Vs. A. Abdul Rahim and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1961
Reported in: (1961)GLR555; [1961]43ITR8(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad. The assessee in this case is the firm of Messrs. A. Abdul Rahim and Co., Baroda, the assessment year being 1957-58, the accounting year being Samvat year 2012. 2. Prior to Samvat year 2012, the firm of Messrs. A. Abdul Rahim and Co., consisted of three partners by name Abdul Rahim Valibhai, Abdulla Rahman and Abdul Rahim Malangbhai. These three partners had the respective shares of 9 annas, 5 annas and 2 annas in the profit and loss of the said partnership. This partnership was registered till the end of Samvat year 2011, i.e., November 14, 1955. On March 6, 1956, a deed of partnership was executed by the aforesaid three partners, and by Abdulrehman Kalubhai, a nephew of the partner Abdul Rahim Valibhai. Under the deed of partnership it was provided that the share of Abdul Rahim Valibhai was 7 annas in a rupee, that t...
State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ328; (1961)GLR623
Raju, J.1. (After stating file facts, the judgment proceeds as under:)2. Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code, an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal is to be filed within the period of 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal. The four applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal were filed after the expiration of 78 days from the date of life orders of acquittal, and prima facie they are barred under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cri Pro. Code. But, the learned Counsel for the Municipality contends that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the delay, if any, should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contends that the High Court was closed for vacation from 1st May, 1960, to 12th June, 1960 and that the applications were filed on the clay on which the High Court re-opened. But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court ...
Vinubhai Harilal Panchal Vs. N.H. Shethan, Deputy Commissioner of Poli ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR66
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the holder of a licence to sell tickets in Laxmi Talkies situate at Gheekanta Ahmedabad. On 14 6-1960 a show cause notice was issued to him requiring him to show cause why his licence which was valid upto 31-12-1960 should not be suspended on the ground that certain irregularities in the sale of tickets had been noticed by the Chief Entertainment Duty Inspector when he visited the Laxmi Talkies on 17-4-1960. After that show cause notice the petitioner gave his reply on 30-6-1960. Respondent No. 1 passed an order on 23-7-1960 suspending the petitioners licence and he filed a civil suit on 30-7-1960 Which was ultimately withdrawn as the requisite notice under Section 80 C.P. Code had not been given. The licence for the next year namely 1961 was granted on 31 On 28-2-1961 an order was passed suspending this licence and this order was served on the petitioner on 5-3-1961. It is this order which is challeng...
Motilal Harilal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay No ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR557(Guj)
The judgment of court was delivered byK. T. DESAI, C.J. - The assessee in this case is Motilal Harilal and Co. Ltd. The assessment year is 1956-57, the accounting year being the calendar year 1955. The total income of the assessee company for this assessment year was computed at Rs. 4,13,561. Under the provisions of the Finance Act of 1956 which was applicable for the relevant period, the assessee company was liable to pay super-tax at the rate of Rs. 0-6-9 in the rupee. The Finance Act, however, provided for certain rebate being given. By sub-clause (ii) of proviso 1 to paragraph D of Part II of the Schedule to the Finance Act, 1956, it was provided that 'a rebate at the rate of four annas per rupee of the total income shall be allowed in the case of any company which satisfies condition (a) but not condition (b) of the preceding clause'. It is not disputed that the company in this case satisfied the aforesaid condition (a) but not condition (b), with the result that if this sub-claus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›