Gujarat Court November 1962 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.
Chatursing Govindsing and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR908
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant was convicted under Section 392(1)(b) read with Section 164(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949. In revision it is urged that the notice Ex. 6 issued under Section 164 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act is not signed by the Deputy Health Officer although the Deputy Health Officer was delegated with powers to do so by the Commissioner of the Corporation. The notice however bore the rubber stamp of the Deputy Health Officer. A notice which merely bears a rubber stamp and does not bear signature of the person cannot be said to have been signed by that person. The Learned Counsel for the Corporation relies on Section 2(56) of the General Clauses Act 1897 as amended which defines sign as follows:'sign' with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall with reference to a person who is unable to write his name include mark with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions.The definition extends the meani...
Shah Jagmohandas Purshottamdas and anr. Vs. Jamnadas Vrajlal Gandhi an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1965Guj181; (1965)0GLR49
(1) There is in the town of Dakore an ancient temple of Shri Ranchhod Raiji which has since hundreds of years attracted large number of devotees from all over India and become a place of pilgrimage and worship for Hindus of all sects and denominations. Towards the end of the last century disputes arose as to management of the temple and at last two suits were brought in respect of the management, In one of the suits, a Scheme for management of the temple was framed by the District Court of Ahmedabad which was the Court then having s2 over the town of Dakore and on appeals being brought to the High Court of Bombay, the High Court made substantial modifications in the Scheme as framed by the District Court and sanctioned the Scheme so modified. It is rather important to note that in the Scheme a originally framed there were various functions assigned to the District Court of Ahmedabad but when the Scheme was modified by the High Court a department was made in that reference as to the Dis...
Bharat Prakashan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1962
Reported in: [1964]54ITR109(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1955-56, the relevant accounting year being Samvat year 2010, i.e., the period commencing from 7th November, 1953, and ending on 26th October, 1954. There are two brothers by name Chandulal Gordhandas and Mafatlal Gordhandas. Mafatlal was born on 23rd October, 1935. At a time when Mafatlal was a minor, a deed of partnership was executed on 25th July, 1953, between Chandulal and Mafatlal purporting to constitute the firm of Messrs. Bharat Prakashan. In the deed of partnership it was stated that Chandulal was aged about 31 years and Mafatlal was aged about 19 years. This statement about the age of Mafatlal was obviously contrary to facts. Since Mafatlal was a minor at the date of execution of the deed of partnership, the purported contract certained in the deed of partnership was void and of no effect in law and no firm came into existence u...
Dilipsinhji P. Desai and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guja ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1962
Reported in: (1963)0GLR665; [1964]54ITR91(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case is the firm of Dilipsinhji P. Desai & Bros. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1954-55, the relevant accounting year being Samvat Year 2009. Dilipsinhji P. Desai and Rajendrasinhji P. Desai executed a deed of partnership dated 1st July, 1952, whereunder it was provided that they had admitted to the benefits of the partnership of Dhilipsinhji P. Desai and Bros. their four minor Brothers, Laxmansinhji, Kirtisinhji, Chetansinhji and Sureshsinhji. It was provided that they had been so admitted to the benefits of the partnership from Kartak Sud I, Samvat year 2006, i.e., 21st October, 1949. Out of the aforesaid four persons who were minors, Sureshsinhji was born on 7th February, 1951 i.e., long after 21st October, 1949. 2. An application was made for registration of that firm under section 26A for the assessment year 1953-54, the accounting period b...
Sayaji Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1962
Reported in: [1964]54ITR97(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference relates to a notice issued under section 34(1)(b) of the Act against the assessee. The assessment year with which are concerned is the year 1949-50, the accounting year being the calendar year 1949. The assessee is a company registered in the former Baroda State having its registered office at Baroda. Prior to the merger of the State of Baroda with the State of Bombay, the assessee was being assessed as a non-resident by the Income-tax Officer at Bombay. On 22nd July, 1949, the assessee in the usual course submitted a return of income under section 22(2) to the Income-tax Officer at Bombay for the assessment year 1949-50. On 1st August, 1949, the territories of the State of Baroda were merged with the territories of the State of Bombay. On 22nd August, 1949, the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Ordinance (XXI of 1949) was passed whereby the Indian Income-...
Harihar Chaturbhai Patel Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj330; 1963CriLJ615; (1964)0GLR42
Mody, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a British Subject and a citizen of the United Kingdom. He also claims to hold a passport issued by Colony and Protectorate of Kenya in Africa under the British Crown.2. In the year 1960 the petitioner was in Nairobi in Kenya. He left the continent of Africa from the port of Mombasa on January 3, 1961 to come to India. It appears that after the petitioner's departure from Kenya, a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 308 of the Penal Code in force in Kenya for obtaining, between December 30, 1960 and January 2, 1961, goods by false pretence fromvarious merchants in Nairobi. These offences werealleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Nairobi,It is not necessary to go into the details of allegations made against the petitioner in this writ application. It will be sufficient to state that the allegation was that the petitioner deposited 20 Shillings...
Bhikhabhai Kalidas Vs. Vali Isa Patel and Co. a Firm and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Guj101
V.B. Raju, J.1. A suit filed by the present petitioner against the two defendants was held to be not maintain-able by the Court of Civil Judge, S. D. at Broach. Defendant No. 1 is a firm and defendant No. 2 was at ons time a partner of the firm. Defendant No. 2 was adjudged insolvent on 18-5-1956. On this ground an objection was taken in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable. In the written statement, an objection was also taken that the firm was itself dissolved upon the adjudication as insolvent of one of the partners and that therefore a suit against the firm did net lie. The learned Judge framed one preliminary issue, namely, whether the suit is not maintainable, and he held in the affirmative on that issue. He thereupon dismissed the suit. Hence this revision.2. The framing of preliminary issues is referred to in Order 14, Rule 1 and Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. Rule 1 of Order 14, C. P. Code classifies issues into two kinds (1) issues of fact, and (2) issues o...
Taj Iron and Steel Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Morvi Iron Syndicate (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR995
V.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application filed by the original defendant arises out of Small Civil suit No. 93 of 1961 the cause of action for which arose both at Surendranagar as well as Bombay but the parties by their contract agreed that all disputes arising out of the contract between them shall be referred to a Court of competent jurisdiction in Bombay alone and at no other place. The learned Judge held that this term in the contract was not in contravention of Section 28 of the Contract Act. But he held that in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act and Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code such an agreement would defeat the provisions of Section 20 C.P.Code and he therefore held that that agreement could not be given effect to. He therefore held that the suit could be filed in Surendranagar Court Hence this revision application. 2. If the parties to a contract provide in the contract that legal proceedings if any should be started a one of the two places havi...
Dalichand Motichand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-02-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR520(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. The assessee, Messrs. Dalichand Motichand, is an unregistered firm. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1947-48, the accounting year being the year 1946-47. At the relevant time, the assessee carried on business as merchants and commission agents at Dhoraji in the former Native State of Gondal in Kathiawar. The assessee entered into a contract for the supply of certain quantity of hemp nets lying at Bhavnagar to Messrs. Chimanlal Sarabhai & Co. The contract provided for the sale of the entire quantity of hemp nets weighing 558 tons and 10 cwt. at the rate of Rs. 320 per ton. The goods were then lying at various presses of Bhavnagar and were to be delivered to the purchaser after they were pressed in bales. A term of the contract provided that the payment in respect of the goods should be made by the purchaser to the assessee in Kathiawar within one month of the taking of delivery of the goods. The goods were delivered to the purchaser, Messrs....
Ramjibhai Hansjibhai Patel Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ahm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR702; [1964]53ITR547(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee, Ramjibhai Hansjibhai Patel, is assessed to income-tax as an individual. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1948-49, the accounting year being Samvat Year 2003, i.e., the period from 25th October, 1946, to 12th November, 1947. The assessee had been living in Johannesburg in Africa for a long time. He came to India in April, 1946, and left for Africa in September, 1948. He was at the material time a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family which owned and maintained a house at Varad in Surat District. The expenses for maintaining this house were met by the Hindu undivided family out of its own resources. In connection with this house, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found as under : 'Here was a house in British India where the appellant was, by right, entitled to stay whenever he liked. He is a full-fledged member of the Hindu undivided family and would...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »