Gujarat Court December 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.
Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, Gujarat Vs. Mrs. Manorama Sarabhai.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1962
Reported in: [1966]59ITR262(Guj)
K. T. DESAI C.J. - This is a reference under section 25(1) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, Gujarat. The assessee in this case is Shrimati Manorama Sarabhai. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1959-60, the accounting year being the year which ended on 31st March, 1959. The assessee is a B. Sc. in Social Sciences of the London University and a graduate of the Bombay University. She devotes part of her time to running educational institutions for children. She has been associated with the Shreyas school at Ahmedabad for about fourteen years and is one of the persons running the same. The school is run in the same way as other institutions with the help of paid employees, but in view of her financial position, the assessee renders service to the school in an honorary capacity. At the time when she left India in or about April, 1958, she applied to the Reserve Bank of India for allotment of the nec...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat Vs. Sumatilal Popatlal and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1962
Reported in: (1963)0GLR265; [1964]15STC498(Guj)
Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad. The opponents are dealers in hessian and have a place of business at Ahmedabad. The opponents effected a sale of hessian to Messrs Bihari Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, under their bill dated 12th July, 1958. On 11th August, 1958, the opponents made an application under section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and requested the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Northern Division, Ahmedabad, to determine the question whether the said sale of hessian was exempt from tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. In the said application, it was stated that the hessian sold by them was not lying with them on 12th December, 1957, and that it did not form part of any other dealer's non-dutiable stock of hessian. In the statement of the case, it has been mentioned that it was not lying with them on 15th December, 1959. It is agreed by both the parties ...
Shah Tribhuvandas Lallubhai Vs. Shah Chhitalal Chunilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj256; (1963)GLR1096
V.B. Raju, J.1. This arises out of a consent decree passed in a suit filed by the respondent. In the decree it was provided that if the amount of Rs. 1,801/- was not paid by a particular date, the appellant should pay Rs. 3,800/- to the plaintiff. The decree was partly executed in Darkhast No. 29 of 1953 in the Sankheda Civil Court, that is, in the Court which passed the decree. It was then transferred to the Dabhoi Court for execution in regard to the balance of the money. The contention taken before the Dabhoi Court was that the decree was penal and that, therefore, there should be relief against forfeiture and relief against the penalty. This contention was rejected in appeal by the District Judge, Baroda, who held that there was no penal clause in the decree. He also held that the contention was barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the decision inSpecial Suit No. 103 of 1953 which was filed by the sons of the judgment-debtor to which the judgment-debtor was a party, w...
Nathubhai Gulabdas Vs. Bhakhibhai Muljibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj305
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. (27-11-1962) The petitioner's suit for possession from his tenant on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for a period exceeding six months that he had not paid the arrears not with standing a notice, within one month of the date of the notice and that the plaintiff was in bona fide requirement of the suit premises, was decreed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surat, who accepted both the contentions. But in appeal the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surat, allowed .the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. His finding that the plaintiff was not in bona fide requirement of the suit premises is not challenged in revision. But his finding that the defendant was ready and willing to pay fhe rent and was, therefore, not entitled to be' ejected is challenged in revision, and it is contended that in view of the provisions of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which will hereinafter be...
State of Gujarat Vs. Mangaldas Amulakharai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj296; 1963CriLJ519a; (1963)4GLR505
Shelat, J.1. These three appeals are against the orders passed &y; the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 1st court (Municipality), Ahmedabad, whereby he acquitted the respondents in three cases filed against them under Section 392(J) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The charge against the three accused was that they had failed to comply with the requisition made by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad under Section 223 of the Act requiring them to pave a private street bearing survey Nos. 2460 and 2465. These two survey numbers are jointly owned by the respondents and 14 others residing in that locality end admeasure 36 and 44 sq. yds. respectively. It seems that these two survey numbers form a private street and action was taken by the Municipal Corporation at the instance of the respondents. The points involved in all these three appeals are the same and relate to the same properties and they all arise in respect of the same notice under Section 223...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›