Gujarat Court November 1965 Judgments
Ranchhod Zina Vs. Patankar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj248; (1966)GLR341(GJ)
ORDER1. Two contentions have been raised in this petition (1) challenging the validity of the notification dated May 29, 1962 issued by the Collector. Broach District under Section 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1959 on the ground that the Collector had no authority to issue a fresh order under that section once he had already issued a previous order, thereby exhausting his power under the provisions of Section 10, and (2) that assuming that he had such power, the impugned notification and the order which it notified were issued mala fide for an oblique purpose extraneous to the purpose envisaged by Section 10 of the Act. In order to appreciate these two contentions raised by Mr. Nanavati on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to stale a few relevant facts 2. The pelitionci1 at the material time was a resident of village Tankari in Broach District The local area of Tankari Bunder was declared to be a village under Section 4 of the Act. At all material limes, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Ahmedabad Vs. Deepak Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj227; (1966)0GLR282
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 54 of the Bombay Stamp Act LX of 1958. The questions referred to us under the reference are--(1) Whether the agreement to which merely a passing reference has been made in the sale deed and which is not an adjunct to the sale deed can be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing stamp duty;(2) Whether in absence of any mention regarding apportionment of mortgage debt as encumbrances over the immovable and movable properties, the party can escape stamp duty over the mortgage amount at all;(3) In the case under consideration whether the stamp duty should be Rs. 24,000 or Rs. 96,000.Questions (1) and (2) are not pressed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and therefore it is only the third question that remains to be considered. The answer to that question turns on the true and proper interpretation of some of the clauses of the deed of conveyance entered into on October 3, 1968 be...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR45(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. Two questions are referred to us for our determination in this reference. The first relates to four assessment years, namely, 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49, while the second relates to the first three of these assessment years. The facts in regard to the two questions are quite distinct and it would, therefore, be convenient to set them out separately in regard to each question. The first question raises the point as to whether certain sale proceeds received by the assessee in respect of sales effected to British Indian buyers were received in British India or outside British India. If they were received in British India, the profit embedded in them would be taxable under section 4(1)(a) as profit received in British India, but it would not be so taxable if they were received outside British India. This position obtained because the assessee was a non-resident during the relevant assessment years and its liability to British Indian tax depended on its receipt of ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Gordhanbhai Vagjibhai and ors. Vs. Vaghri Ranchhodbhai Semtabhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj253; (1966)0GLR311
Shelat, C.J. 1. This petition raises the question of interpretation of the proviso to Section 43C, inserted in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 by Amending Act 13 of 1966 and its effect upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in which the petitioners and their deceased brother Ambalal had tiled a suit for a decree for eviction, against their tenant, the original respondent No, 1 The petition came up for hearing before Divan J on February 24, 1964 who feeling that there was a conflict between two decisions of this Court, one an unreported decision in .Special Civil Appln. No. 105 of 1960 (Guj) decided by S.T. Desaf C J. and Raju J on January 19. 1961 and the other in Kalicharan v. Mahalaxmi : (1963)4GLR145 referred the case lo a larger Bench That is how this matter has come up before us. 2. Pending the hearing of this petition. the original respondent No. 1 died and respondents 1-A lo 1-G were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives 3. Before we proc...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhi Moosa Taiyab Vs. the State of Bombay , Now State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj257
(1) The suit from which these appeals arise instituted by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of Assistant Judge, Porbandar, for a declaration that the order passed on 6th September, 1952, by the Assistant Collector, Porbandar, whereby the suit land admeasuring Acres 41-39 Gunthas came to be allotted to the defendants No. 2 and 3, who are respondents Nos. 2 and 3, is illegal and without jurisdiction and for a declaration that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 continued to be the tenants of the plaintiff in respect of those lands. The plaintiff alleged that on account of the political disturbances in village Hamadpara, where he lived and cultivated the suit lands in 1947, he like others had left that place and stayed at nearby village Kutiyana. The State of Junagadh came to be taken over by the Union of India in about November, 1947, and it later on came to be integrated to the United State of Saurashtra with effect from 20th January, 1949. While the State of Junagadh was under the administratio...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Nada Wd/O. Bhoi Shana Kalyan and ors. Vs. Patel Shivabhai Shankerb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR662
M.U. Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of dismissal of a Civil Suit for compensation instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act XIII of 1855) by a young widow of 25 years and her two infant sons for the benefit of themselves and of two minor daughters named Shanta and Kamla. The compensation prayed for in the suit which was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Nadiad as Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 1957 was for loss occasioned by the death of one Bhoi Shana Kalyan to the said dependants of the deceased, who was the husband of the plaintiff-widow and father of the four minor children. The death of said Bhoi Shana Kalyan is alleged to have been caused by wrongful acts of the original defendants who are respondents herein. Deceased Bhoi died at a young age of 25 years, leaving behind him the plaintiff-widow and four minor children aged 9, 2, 8 and 4 respectively. The plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants as joint tort-feasors for their tortious acts ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarlal Nandlal Maula Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Now the State of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR589
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question as the interpretation of Section 115 of the Code.2. The plaintiff had filed the present suit against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the order of reversion in rank was illegal and for an amount of Rs. 4120/- as difference in salary. The plaintiff had sought the amendment of the plaint under which he had prayed for an additional ground to the effect that the order of the State of Bombay was invalid also on the ground of discrimination, as violating Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution and for valuing the suit at Rs. 10003 and 16 nP for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. These amendments were granted and the suit was disposed of from the ordinary file and was registered as special suit No. 1 of 1962, and was then decreed in favour of the plaintiff. In appeal, however, it was held that the State of Gujarat was not responsible for the suit claim after the bifurcation of the State of Bombay a...
Tag this Judgment!Miyabhai Jamalbhai Vs. Karimbhai Mahomedbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj16
(1) The suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for a declaration that they are entitled to continue in possession of stall No. 135 situated in the municipal market at Broach and belonging to broach Borough Municipality - defendant No. 1 and that the defendant No.2 had no right or interest therein and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction either by themselves or through their servants in the possession or enjoyment thereof. (2) The Broach Borough Municipality owns certain stalls in the municipal market in the Katopore Bazar, Broach, and they have been given on licence to different merchants. The stall bearing No. 136 was at one time occupied by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2. It also appears that they formed a partnership firm and were carrying on their business in that shop. On 23-1-1952, the plaintiffs gave an application Ex. 170 to the Municipality of Broach stating that they ...
Tag this Judgment!Pathak Haygriv Vishwanath Vs. Pathak Thakorlal Manilal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj192
[1-6] XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX (7) Now before we consider the points raised in this Court, it is essential to set out some of the undisputed or rather facts established in the case. One Bohgilal had three sons - Harilal, Maganlal and Manilal. Manilal is defendant No. 1 and he is the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4. Bhogilal died in the year 1941 and some time after his death partition of his properties was effected between his sons first in 1941 and then in November 1942 as would appear from Exs. 73 and 74 which are the certified copies of the extracts of the books of accounts produced by Maganlal. Ex. 65 who has filed the present suit as the next friend of the minor-plaintiffs. It appears therefrom that in partition Manilal got two houses - one of them being the suit house - and another house which is referred to in evidence as his shop. He also got various lands which have been set out in details in the deed Ex. 67 passed by defendant No. 1 on 21-6-1943, in favour of his son and h...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmashi and ors. Vs. Patel Kadva Bhada and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj302; (1966)7GLR405
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application arises under the following circumstances:A suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Rajkot, in connection with certain property. The parties at the trial of that suit rested content with leading oral evidence only and no documentary evidence was led. The defendants pleaded that on an exchange of lands which had come about through certain official proceedings of the then Gondal State, the property in question had come to the ancestors of the defendants. No attempt appears to have been made by the parties to lead any evidence regarding the records of Gondal State before the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit purely on appreciation of the oral evidence that had been led before him. Against this decision, the defendants went in appeal and two applications were presented by different defendants, one being Ex. 11 before the appellate Court and the other being Ex. 14 before the appellate Court, aski...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »