Gujarat Court October 1965 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.
Shamji Khima Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ964; (1965)GLR953
ORDERJ.B. Mehta, J.1. These two revision petitions arise, from a common judgment and are being disposed off by this common order. They are filed by the original complainant Shamji Khima against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, who had allowed the appeal filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli, granting B Summary with prosecution and as a result of which two complaints were filed against the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge had remanded the matter to the trial Magistrate with a direction that he should hold a regular preliminary inquiry and record a finding whether it was expedient in the interest if justice to file a complaint.2. The short facts which have given rise to these revision applications are as under:The police authorities had filed two police reports No. 15 of 1963 and No. 16 of 1963. The Report No. 15/63 related to the complaint of petitioner Shamji Khima against three accused persons Kathi Me...
ismail Haji Mohammed Abrahani and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj264; (1966)GLR208
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Sorath, Junagadh, dismissing their First Appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 Clause (1), Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit against the original State of Saurashtra under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the relief that certain immovable properties which plaintiff 1 had by a wakfnama handed over for the Benefit of one Islamia Girls School at Junagadh be made use of for another object mentioned in that very wakfnama as the original object had failed and for framing a scheme. Various grounds were set forth in support of this prayer but they are not necessary to be stated herein. The State had contested the plaintiff's suit on various grounds and the trial Court came to the conclusion that none of the grounds urged by the plaintiff's entitled them to the reliefs that they had claimed and dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in their capaci...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Ambalal Maganlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ967; (1966)GLR23
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal from an acquittal. The main argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader in support of his appeal is that the respondent in his compromise which was filed in the High Court in another matter admitted that there was no truth in the complaint made by him. It is, therefore, submitted that his acquittal under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Cods was wrong. That compromise was proved by a certified copy. His further contention is that the compromise is a public document because it was produced in a Criminal Revisional Court and also because the Revisional Court took that compromise as one of the reasons of its judgment for reducing the sentence. It is contended that the compromise became a part of the record of the Court and that therefore it is a public docutment. Before the compromise was presented in this Court it was an act of the parties. It was, therefore, a private document. A private document does not become a public document simply because i...
Vithal Chhagan and Sons Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC96(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. A very short question arises on this reference, namely, whether wrist watch-cases with chromo-steel back are spare parts of watches within the meaning of entry 10 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee carries on business as a manufacturer of wrist watch-cases and machine tools. The assessee sold seven dozen wrist watch-cases with chromo-steel back under a bill dated 2nd May, 1963, and submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 for determination of the sales tax payable on the same. The Deputy Commissioner took the view that wrist watch-cases were 'spare parts' of watches and fell within entry 10 of Schedule E and were, therefore, taxable at the rate specified in that entry. The assessee's contention was that wrist watch-cases were not 'spare parts' of watches within the meaning of entry 10 of Schedule E and since there was no other specific entry covering them, they fell within the residuary entry 22 of Sched...
Sarvodaya Motor Works Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC261(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. The question which arises in this reference is whether the contract sought to be assessed by the revenue was a contract of sale of goods or for work and labour. 2. The applicants carry on business as builders of bodies of trucks and of repairing cars and other vehicles. On 7th August, 1962, they entered into a contract with Messrs Patel Maraman Bhaya and Mohanlal & Co. of Keshod, whereby they undertook to construct the body of a truck belonging to the said firm. The contract set out the various specification 'for building the body of the truck on W.B. (i.e., wheel base)'. These specifications inter alia provided the size of the body, its length, width and height, and the materials of which the floor thereof was to be made, the manner in which nuts and bolts had to be affixed as also the central pillar, which was to be a folding one, the number of hooks to be affixed and for a cabin with two full size doors for the driver. The contract then states that a lump sum of Rs. 3...
Kanji Ranchhod Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR339(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This reference arise out of reassessment proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, of a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in motor spare parts and cigarettes. The proceedings were in respect of the assessment year 1953-1954 of which the corresponding year of account was Samvat year 2008. 2. The Original assessment for the assessment years 1953-54 was completed on August 2, 1957, the total income then assessed being RS. 14,868 consisting of the profit and income from business, interest and property. On an appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant commissioner by his order dated January 31, 1958, reduced it to Rs. 14,420. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had produced the books of account pertaining to both the business, but had not produced along with those books the balance-sheets. At a later date, which is not quite clear from the statement of the case, the Income-tax Officer learnt that an amount of Rs. 21,352 was lying depo...
Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1965
Reported in: (1966)GLR156; [1966]18STC311(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. Though there are four questions referred to us for our opinion, they raise only three points for our consideration and each one of the points is covered by a decision binding on us. It will, therefore, be sufficient if we refer to the facts giving rise to the reference and then proceed to dispose of the points in accordance with the decision relevant to each point. The assessment period with which we are concerned in this reference is 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955. The assessee is a limited liability company which at the material period carried on business of manufacturing and selling cotton textile goods. During the relevant assessment period the assessee inter alia sold diverse kinds of stores, materials and other goods as also some old looms and machinery as per particulars set out in the list, annexure 2 to the statement of the case. The sale price received by the assessee in respect of stores, materials and other goods was Rs. 1,20,199 while the sale price re...
State of Gujarat Vs. Laljibhai Chaturbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj61; 1967CriLJ376; (1966)GLR120
(1) The question in this appeal by the State against an acquittal under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is whether by refusing to give a sample of milk and leaving the shop, a person can be said to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample. It is also in evidence that the respondent raised his hand. But there is no evidence to show whether the raising of the hand amounted to a threat or an assault. We can, therefore, leave it out of account but the Food Inspector has got powers under S. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to take sample. Mere refusal, therefore, would not amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample. There is also no evidence of any threat as was in the case of in Cort v. Ambergate, Nottingham and Boston and Eastern Junction Railway Co. (1851) (1851) 20 (1851) (1851) 20 LJ QB 460 at p. 465. Whether the Food Inspector was prevented or not would depends on the facts of the case in order to constitute the offence. Th...
Maun Hakmichand Jagjivan Vs. Maun Vanmali Jagjivan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR215
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant's contention is that his application is within time because of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which he had filed and be contends that the time spent in pursuing that application should be excluded. His contention is that the application is, in fact, an appeal to the Supreme Court. An application for leave to appeal under Article 136(1)(c) and an application for special leave to appeal under Article 137 of the Constitution should be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. It is clear in Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court after the High Court certifies that the case is a tit one for appeal.2. After the grant of a certificate, a regular appeal has lo be filed in the Supreme-Court. It is only then that the appeal is filed the same argument applies in the case of Article 136 of the Constitution. The period, therefore, taken in filing an application for leave to appeal or for...
ismail Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Firm of Ratilal Jashwantlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR879
V.B. Raju, J.1. The respondents execution application against the appellants was held not to be time barred by the lower appellate Court on the ground That the limitation is saved by Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 because all the properties of the appellants were evacuee properties and they had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Properties by reason of a vesting order. The effect of the vesting order is that the execution of the decree against the properties which had vested in the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties was barred by Section 17 of the Administration of Eaacuee Property Act 1950 but the execution of the decree itself was not barred.2. If all the properties had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Properties perhaps we could say that the execution of the decree had been barred. But even then we cannot say that the personal execution of the decree had been barred. In any case Section 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act shows that some of the properti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›