Gujarat Court February 1964 Judgments
Ambalal Jivabhai Patel Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR308(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. A short question arises on this petition, namely, whether a certain intimation received by the Income-tax Officer from the Assessor and Collector of Municipal Taxes, Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, could be said to constitute 'information' on which the Income-tax officer could act for the purpose of initiating proceedings for reassessment against the petitioner under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is an assessee owning an immovable property situate at Nawrangpura, Ahmedabad. In his assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 for which the corresponding previous year was the calendar year 1957, the petitioner returned a total income of Rs. 78,542, which included Rs. 3,553 under the head 'Income from property'. The amount of Rs. 3,553 was shown in the return as income from property on the basis of the retable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The Income...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhudas Jagjivandas and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-b, Surendr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR1a(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition filed by some of the partners of the firm of Messrs. Dhrangadhra Salt Trading Company challenges an order of reassessment made against the firm under section 34(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1950-51 and certain orders of penalty imposed on the firm under sections 28 and 46(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 and certain orders of penalty imposed on the firm under sections 28 and 46(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 and 1952-53. The firm was originally constituted under a deed of partnership dated 29th April, 1947. Three firms, namely, Messrs. Ramvallabh Gopikishan, Messrs. Vasantlal Manoharlal and Messrs Jagjivandas Hirachand and one individual, namely, Kesrimal Bhunch, were shown as partners of the firm in the deed of partnership dated 29th April, 1947. The petitioners were partners of Messrs. Jagjivandas Hirachand. The firm carried on business in salt at Dhrangadhra situate in the f...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay (Now the State of Gujarat) Vs. Ishwarlal Nandlal M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj173
Vakil, J.(1)First Appeal No. 224 of 1963 was filed the State of Gujarat against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Broach in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1962 on 5-11-1962. When this appeal was put on board final hearing, the appellant filed Civil Application No. 114 of 1964 on the 22nd of January stating for reasons mentioned therein the State of Maharashtra was a necessary party to the proceeding and that, therefore, it be joined as a party and the State of Gujarat be allowed to raise a question about the liability of the State of Maharashtra in this First Appeal No. 224 of 1963. Having regard to the facts of the case which we shall presently state, it will be convenient to deal with and dispose of both these matters by a common object. The plaintiff-respondent joined service of the then Government of Bombay as a Clerk in the Revenue Department in the year 1926. Later on he was taken up as Aval Karkun. There is a dispute as to when he was confirmed, but that has ...
Tag this Judgment!Navanagar Transport and Industries Limited Vs. Income-tax Officer, Spe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1964
Reported in: (1964)GLR865; [1964]54ITR271(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. A very interesting question of law arises on this petition. The question is whether an order under section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood after its amendment by the Finance Act, 1955, can be made at any time or whether it is governed by the time-limit specified in section 34(3). The facts giving rise to this petition are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The first petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of transporting goods and has its registered office at Jamnagar. Though the first petitioner is a public limited company, it is not a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A. The second petitioner is the managing director of the first petitioner. The relevant accounting years of the first petitioner corresponding to the assessment year 1957-58 was the financial year ending 31st March, 1957. The profit of the first petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58, according to its profit...
Tag this Judgment!Jawaharlal Gulabchand and anr. Vs. the Surat Dairy Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR786
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat dated March 11 1960 in Civil Suit No. 649 of 1956 by which he has referred the question whether the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the suit land under the Tenancy Act to the Mamlatdar Choryasi Taluka for decision under Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act2. The facts which give rise to this application are as under: The applicants are the owners of lands S. Nos. 62 61 and 63/2 at Moje Panas in Umra Taluka Choryasi with trees bungalows garage etc. standing on them. A lease was executed on February 1 1943 between the applicants and opponent No. 1 the Surat Dairy Company Ltd. through its managing agents opponent No. 2 of which original defendant No. 3 was the managing partner for a period of 10 years from February 1 1943 to May 30 1953 on an annual rent of Rs. 600/-. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Ganpatram Vs. Shri Sayaji Jubilee Cotton and Jute Mills Co. L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1964
Reported in: (1964)0GLR804
1. During the course of my experience at the bar and on the Bench I have come across very few petitions under section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, which have been brought to a conclusion. The remedy under section 397 or 398 as a weapon in the shareholders' armoury has proved more potent when brandished in terrorem than when actually used to strike and it has, therefore, in most cases served as an effective threat to induce those in control to behave reasonably towards all interests and in some cases where those in control have not behaved reasonably and the remedy has been invoked, the proceedings have mostly terminated in a compromise securing the interests sought to be prejudiced by those in control. This petition has been an exception and the only reason I can see for its having run its full course is that there is absolutely no merit in it. I shall immediately proceed to state the facts giving rise to the petition. The facts are many and to some extent disputed and it is,...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Taramati Pranlal Shah Vs. Additional District Magistrate, Kutch D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Guj278; (1964)0GLR825
Shelat, C.J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner and keeper of a printing press styled as Tara Printery and also claims to be in possession thereof. According to her, her brother, one Shantilal Jevatlal Shah, her husband Pranlal Nanchand Shah and she entered into a partnersip in 1949 and that partnership then carried on the business of printing in the name and style of Pravin Printery. Thereafter, disputes arose between the patties and Shantilal filed a civil suit, being Suit No. 84 of 1951 in the District Court at Bhuj, for the dissolution of the partnership. On January 2, 1953 a consent decree was passed in that suit whereunder the partnership was dissolved and the press with all its good-will and assets was taken over by the petitioner and the petitioner started her own business of printing as the sole owner in the name of Tara Printery. According to her, the press was run by her under a declaration made by her as the keeper and owner thereof under Section 4 of the Press and Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Himatsingh Badharsingh Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj302; 1965CriLJ753; (1964)GLR897
Vakil, J. (1) The appellant Himatsingh Bhadarsingh, a Rajput was tried for the murder of a Bhil girl Jivi on 16th of Aril 1962 and was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge at Broach in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1962. He was also convicted for having committed the offence under section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2) The prosecution case may be briefly stated. The appellant was a resident of village Rampura in Taluka Rajpipla of Broach District. He was employed as a teacher in the primary school at village Nava Vaghpura, which was also known as Jitpara. Between these villages, there was a village of Sengpura in which lived deceased Jivi with her parents Shaikhji Raysng and mother Uji. The appellant used to frequently visit the house of Shakhji Raysang on his way back from school and even occasionally stayed at night with them. He had de...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad Dalsukhram Soni Vs. Somabhai Kacharabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Guj260; (1964)0GLR1074
V.B. Raju, J.1. The: appellant gave a Surety bond for Rs. 5,000/- in connection with an application for attachment before judgment by respondent No. 1 in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent' No. 2. A' decree by consent of the parties was ultimately passed in favour of respondent No. 1 for Rs.. 4,000/-and add. The decree was, sought to be executed against the 'appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the: decree cannot -be executed against the appellant. 'Cases of attachment before judgment area referred to in 0rder 38, Rule 5, C. P. Code. Under this Rule the Court may direct the defendant within a time to be ,fixed by it, either furnish security, in such' sum a may'' be specified in the order, to produce and place at the 'disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree,' or to appear and show cause why' he should not furnish security. T...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Purshottamdas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ209
V.B. Raju, J.1. A surety bond issued by a surety for the appearance of an accused person before the police was forfeited on the ground that the accused did not appear before the police at the time mentioned in the bond, and this is the subject-matter of the appeal.2. A parson, who is arrested, may be released by the police or by a Magistrate on bail under Section 496, Criminal P. C, which reads as follows:when any person other than a person accused of a nonbailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police-station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceedings before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail....Section 499, Criminal P.C. is also relevant and that section reads as follows:(1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »