Gujarat Court October 1963 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.
Vaiswaner Trading Co. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-31-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC586(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. On the application of the applicants under section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax determined that rivetted baling hoops sold by the applicants under their bill No. 293 dated 7th November, 1958, were not covered by any specific entry in any of the Schedules to the Act, and, therefore, fell within the residuary entry 80 in Schedule B to the Act. The contention of the applicants was that rivetted bailing hoops were rolled steel sections sold in the same form in which they were directly produced by the rolling mills and were, therefore, covered by entry 4(d)(iv) in Schedule AA to the Act. This contention was negatived by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax who agreed that rivetted baling hoops were rolled steel sections but took the view that they were not sold in the same form in which they were directly produced by the rolling mills and did not, therefore, come within entry 4(d)(iv) in Schedule AA to the Act and since they were...
Chhaganlal Sushiram Vs. Bai Parvati
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-31-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR405
V.B. Raju, J.1. In respect of a document consisting of various terms the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad held that the document except one part which contained a recital of a receipt for the payment of Rs. 3500/cannot be admitted in evidence. The Contention urged in the cross-objections is that even this part of the document should have been held inadmissible in evidence. The Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on Sections 5 6 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Mantappa Nadgowda v. Baswant Rao Nadgowda 14 Moores Indian Appeals 24 The Learned Counsel concedes that that case did not refer to a document which contained a recital in respect of a receipt for payment of money. That case is therefore inappropriate and will not be referred to. Sections 5 and 6 of the Indian Stamp Act deal with the stamp payable on an instrument. Section 6 deals with the stamp payable on instruments coming within several descriptions in Schedule 1.Section 5 deals with instruments relat...
Mahendra Rambhai Patel Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Guj9; [1965]55ITR1(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. (1) This Reference raises an interesting question relating to the applicability of Sections 5 to 23 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in relation to a settlement made by one Rambhai Patel of Uganda. The settlement was made on 26th June 1941, and the subject matter of the settlement consisted of 160 shares in a limited company called Central Cotton Trading Company (Uganda) Limited. I t appears that prior to the date of settlement a declaration of trust was made by Rambhai Patel on 19 t December 1939 settling on trust his six annas share in a partnership business carried on in the name of Central Cotton Trading Company Uganda for the benefit of his two minor sons, Mahendra and Manubhai. The partnership thereafter was converted into a limited company, namely, Central Cotton Trading Company (UGANDA) Limited and in respect of the six nanas share settled on trust, 160 fully paid up shares were allotted.80 shares bearing numbers 279 to 358 being allotted in the name of Purushottam Pa...
Saraswatiban Lallubhai Parikh and anr. Vs. Kantilal Purshottamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj81; (1964)GLR152
ORDERB.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioners in this Civil Revision Applica-tion are original defendants and the opponent is the original plaintiff in Suit No. 1118 of 1963, which was filed by the plaintiff as a Summary suit. After the Summary sun was filed, appearance was entered on behalf of the defen-dants and a summons for judgment was taken out by the plaintiff. On that summons for judgment, tne piaintitf put in his affidavit in support of the summons for judgment and the defendants applied for leave to detend and also put in their affidavit-in-reply setting out their version of the facts which led to the disputes between the parties. According to tne plaintiff, there was a cheque for Rs. 2000/- drawn by the defendants in his favour and that crteque was not presented to the Bank because the defendants had asked that it should not be presented . In the affidavit-in-reply the defendants' contention was that the cneque was not given at all to the plaintiff but was drawn in the name of the p...
Baimanchha Wd/O. Nathurhai Bhagvanji and ors Vs. Sardar SajjadnashIn S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR545
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These two appeals arise from two decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Surat on 30th of April 1957 in Special Jurisdiction Suit No. 26 of 1951 and Regular Civil Suit No. 1129 of 1952 by which the learned Judge dismissed the suits. We may briefly mention the facts which gave rise to the two suits. There is no dispute that the respondent Sardar Sajjadanashin Saiyed Mahomed Bakar-El-Edrus who is the common respondent in both the appeals is the Inamdar of the Village Orma situated in the district of Surat with which village we are concerned in these two appeals. There is also no dispute that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were at all material times the cultivators of various fields in the village. Originally the plaint which was presented in Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1951 was signed by the plaintiffs thereof and the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff of the second suit No. 1129 of 1952. However the latter died before the presentation of ...
Ambalal Shivlal Vs. VIn D.M. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj192; [1964(9)FLR328]; (1964)GLR609; (1964)0GLR609
Miabhoy, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is Ambalal Shivlal. Respondent 1 was, at the relevant time, the officer presiding over the first labour court, Ahmedabad. Petitioner was running at Ahmedabad an establishment for manufacturing bidis. Respondents 2 and 9 (hereafter called 'respondents' simpliciter) were petitioner's employees. The wages payable to respondents were governed by an award of the industrial tribunal. On 20 January 1956 petitioner gave a notice that respondents shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per 1,000 rolls. The rate so offered by petitioner was lower than the rate fixed by the industrial award. By their reply, dated 4 February 1956, respondents refused to accept the variation in the rate. Thereafter, there was some further correspondence between the parties and, ultimately on 13 February 1956, petitioner gave a notice to respondents in which he said that respondents had declined his offer and that,...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›