Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj283; 1965CriLJ743
Vakil, J. (1) This petition is directed against the order passed by thee Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, removing the petitioner from the police force. The petitioner was appointed by the District Superintendent of Police, District Surat, to the post of a police constable in the year 1948. In 1953 in the ordinary course of service, he was transferred to the City of Ahmedabad. In August 1959, he suffered from kidney trouble and was advised to have himself operated and was operated in the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad in September 1959. The first operation was a failure. According to the petitioner, it had so happened because there was negligence on the part of the authorities of the Civil Hospital. He was advised to undergo a second operation. He was released from the Civil Hospital on the 31st (sic) of September 1959. Having lost confidence in the management and the staff of the Civil Hospital, the petitioner applied to the District Superintendent of Police to permit him to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj1
ORDER1. These eleven petitions arc directed against the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' dismissing the petitioners' appeals arising from the claims of compensation for extinguishment or modification of their rights to receive rash allowances on the abolition of the Jagirs in question on the ground that such claims have no market value and, therefore, they could not be entertained under Section 14(1) of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953, Act No. XXXIX of 1954, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioners have prayed for a proper writ under Articles 220 and 227 of the Constitution, but the substantial relief is under Article 227 to quash the said decision. As all these matters involved common questions of Jaw and were disposed of by three decisions of the Tribunal, which have proceeded on the same reasoning and as they have been jointly heard by me, I am disposing of all these petitions by this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)0GLR1; [1964]54ITR664(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This reference relates to two assessment years 1957-1958 and 1958-1959 and the dispute is as regard two sums of Rs. 14,923, and Rs. 18,966 received by the assessee as and by way of the 'Gurubhets' during the two relative previous years respectively and included in his assessments for these two years. 2. The assessee is one of the direct descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya who founded the Vallabh Sampradaya or what is otherwise known as Punshtimarg and which has considerable following in this part of the country as such. He is one of the Sampradaya, has several properties and resides at Porbandar. Unlike the heads of some other sects, he leads the life of a Grahastha, has a wife, a son and three daughters. As found by the Income-tax Officer, the office he holds is a hereditary one and he would, therefore, be succeeded by his son or sons, as the case may be. At Porbandar, he keeps and maintains an idol of Lord Krishna in his house. As a result of the decision in Maharaj Shr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj214; (1965)0GLR599
ORDER(1) The order against which this revision application has been filed is an order rejecting an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis on two grounds: (1) That under Order 33, Rule 5, cls. (a) and (d), Civil Procedure Code, whether it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3; and (2) that the allegation do not show a cause of action (sic). The second argument is unsound, because the learned Judge has held that the plaint does not show a cause of action. Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.Code, shows that a distinction is made between failure to show a cause of action and bar limitation or of any other law. The two ideas are quite distinct. It is contended that on the date of the suit there must be a subsisting cause of action and reliance is placed on H. Pascal v. Secy. of State, AIR 1934 Rang 111. The bar of limitation does not destroy the cause of action, if any, but only bars the remedy. The two ideas as distinct as seen from Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)10GLR1002; [1965]55ITR580(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. Two questions arise in this reference : '(1) Whether the two-thirds of the sale proceeds of the forest trees and forest produce sold by the assessee during the accounting year, Samvat year 2006, constitute capital receipt, and (2) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, certain operations carried out by the assessee with reference to the lands in question constitute agriculture operations, making the sale proceeds agricultural income as defined by section 2(1) and being exempt form income-tax under section 4(3) (viii) of the Income-tax Act of 1922.' 2. The assessee is the present Ruler of the former State of Bansda which merged in the Dominion of India in 1948 and which was attached to the former State Of Bombay. The assessee is the owner of certain forest lands situated in villages Sadaddevi, Ranifalia and Vaghai which were gifted to him by his father in Samvat year 2006, that the relevant previous year. He sold the trees and other forest produce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj243
Shelat, C.J.(1) Two questions arise in this reference, (1) whether the two-third of the sale proceeds of the of the forest trees and forest produce sold by the assessee during the accounting year, Samvat Year 2006, constitute capital receipts, and (2) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, certain operations carried out by the assessee with reference to the lands in question constitute agricultural operations, making the sale proceeds agricultural income as defined by S. 2(1) and being exempt from income-tax under S.4(3)(viii) 0f the Income-tax Act of 1922.(2) The assessee is the present Ruler of the former State of Bansda which merged in the dominion of India in 1948 and which was attached to the former State of Bombay. The asssesse is the owner of certain forest lands situate in villages Sadad devi, Ranifalia and Vaghai which were gifted to him by his father in Samvat Year 2006, that being the relevant previous year. He sold the trees and other forest produce exis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj234; [1964]54ITR792(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.(1) The short question arising in this reference is whether the amount of Rs.21, 741/- incurred in the purchase of types for the printing machine in the first year of its business by the assessee firm is a revenue expenditure allowable as a deduction under S.10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Under Clause (xv) of S.10 (2) what is allowed as a deduction is, 'any expenditure not being an allowance of the nature of described in any of the clauses (I) to (xiv) inclusive and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation'. (2) The assessee firm is a registered firm carrying on business of publishing a daily newspaper in Gujarati called 'Jansatta'. The business was commenced from 4th November 1953, but in the very first year of its business, there was a change in the personal on 26th August 1954, and therefore, the accounts for that year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)0GLR108
Shelat, C.J.1. The short question arising in this reference is whether the amount of Rs. 21,741, incurred in the purchase of types for the printing machine in the first year of its business by the assessee-firm is revenue expenditure allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Under clause (xv) of section 10(2), what is allowed as deduction 'any expenditure not being an allowance of the nature described in any of the clauses (i) to (xiv) inclusive and not being in the nature of capital ependiture or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expended wholly and exculsively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation.' 2. The assessee-firm is a registered firm carrying on business of publishing a daily newspaper in Gujarati called Jansatta. The business was commenced from November 4, 1953, but in the very first year of its business, there was a chance in the personnel on August 26, 1954, and, therefore, the accounts for that year, i.e, S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj318; 1965CriLJ761; (1966)0GLR118
(1) This is an appeal against an acquittal. One Bansilal introduced goods into the limits of the Municipality of Baroda and represented that the goods were taken out of the municipal limits. He was, therefore, given what is called a transit pass, but he did not return transit pass to show that he had taken the goods out of the municipal limits of Baroda. The contention was that he was, therefore, liable to pay the octroi duty and that as he has not done so he was liable to be prosecuted under section 193A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. (2)The learned Magistrate acquitted Bansilal on various grounds. But the acquittal can be justified on another ground, namely that octroi is a duty on goods which a person is liable to pay when he brings goods into or receives goods from beyond the octroi limits of a municipal borough any animal or goods on which octroi id payable. The words 'a person bringing into or receiving from beyond the octroi limits of a municipal borough ' etc, used in se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1966]59ITR507(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This reference pertains to the assessment years 1958-1959 and 1959-1960 of which the relevant previous years were the calender years 1957 and 1958 respectively and raises a short question whether the assessee-company was entitled to development rebate under section 10(2) (vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the cost of certain spindles purchased by the assessee-company at Rs. 25,063 and Rs. 67,980 respectively in the two account years. 2. The assessee-company carried on at all material times the business of manufacturing and selling cotton textiles. In the two accounting years, namely, calendar years 1957 and 1958, the company replaced ordinary, spindles by roller bearing spindles at the cost of Rs. 25,063 and Rs. 67,980 respectively and debited these amounts to the machinery repairs account. The company claimed that the expenses incurred on these spindles having been held to be of a capital nature in the previous years, it was entitled to develop...
Tag this Judgment!