Gujarat Court June 1967 Judgments
Kacharji Hariji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj100; 1969CriLJ471
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is an appeal, filed by the appellant from Jail, against the order of conviction and sentence, passed against him in criminal Case No. 988 of 1966, by the learned Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, Shri P.M. Mehta, The appellant is convicted of an offence, punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is briefly stated as under:--There is a firm, named Everest Chemical Industries, situated at Maninagar, Rambaug, manufacturing medicines. On 21st October, 1966, at about 11.00 a.m. four boxes of medicines were sent through Chhanaji Nathaji, an employee of the said firm. Three boxes were to be sent to Surat and one was to be sent to Botad. One which was to be sent to Botad was to be sent through Bharat Transport Co., situated near Sarangpur Gate, at Ahmedabad...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarati Ii, and Another Vs. Kasturbhai La ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR267(Guj)
BHAGWATI J. - The principal question which arises for determination in this reference is whether a certain expenditure incurred by the assessee can be said to be expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning fees directors so as to be a permissible deduction within section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Lord MacMillan pointed out in Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax :'.... the decided cases show how difficult it is to discriminate between expenditure which is and expenditure which is not, incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains.'And this reference is no exception. The facts giving rise to the reference are a little important and in order to arrive at a proper determination of the question, it is necessary to state them in some detail.The reference arises out of two separate assessments made on the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63. The relevant account year of the first assessees, namely, Kasturbhai Lalbhai...
Tag this Judgment!Panchal Keshavlal Somnath and ors. Vs. Chinubhai Jagjivandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR772
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. In this revision application, the main question for determination is whether an order made under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code by a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, refusing to set aside an exparte decree passed by it is appealable under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to a Bench of two Judges of the Court of Small Causes as provided under Section 29 of the Act. The applicants are the original defendants against whom Civil Suit No. 1299 of 1963 was filed by the opponent for recovery of possession of rented premises, in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad. That suit was under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 as applicable to the State of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') and the Court was exercising jurisdiction while entertaining and deciding the suit under Section 28 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Raol Shri Chandrasinhji Dilawarsinhji and ors. Vs. Dhanvantkunverba Wd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR1055
N.G. Shelaf, J.1. The facts giving rise to the appeal broadly stated are that in a Civil Suit No. 40 of 1953 filed by the plaintiff-appellant, a consent decree between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 came to be passed on 26-4-53. That suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and that the defendant No. 1 had merely a right for maintenance and that she was, therefore, not entitled to have any right or interest in the property. That suit was resisted by the defendants and a consent decree was passed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in the Court of a Civil Judge (S. D.) at Bhavnagar. The terms of the consent decree were as under:(1) Defendant No. 1 Ba Shri Dhankunverba has a daughter named Ramakunverba. If after the death of defendant No. 1 this Ramakunverba is the lawful heir, she, and if she is not the lawful heir, then the plaintiff and his heirs shall be declared heirs of the defendant.(2) Defendant No. 1 shall not transfer or...
Tag this Judgment!Kanbi Mavji Khimji and anr. Vs. Kanbi Manjibhai Abjibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj198; (1968)0GLR907
ORDER(1) This is a revision petition, filed by the original plaintiffs under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kutch-Bhuj, Shri R. H. Mavani, in a Civil Suit No. 104 of 1967, filed by the plaintiffs petitioners, against the opponents-defendants, refusing the request made by the petitioners to order the attendance of the original defendants Nos. 3 and 7, who had filed affidavits for cross examination.(2) The plaintiffs-petitioners had obtained an ad interim injunction in the aforesaid suit filed by them. The opponents Nos. 3 and 7 filed affidavits in support of their say that it was not a case where interim injunction could be granted and ad interim injunction granted by the Court should be vacated. In that proceeding, the present petitioner filed Ex. 6, requesting the Court to direct the attendance of the opponents Nos. 3 and 7 who had filed affidavits for enabling the petitioners to cross examine them. By the...
Tag this Judgment!Kansara Kantilal Fogatlal Vs. Bai Maniben D/O. Kansara Chunilal Dajibh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1967
Reported in: (1969)10GLR451
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a revision application under the Rent Act. The learned Assistant Judge of Kaira at Nadiad, in appeal, decreed the plaintiff-landlady's suit for possession on the ground of arrears of rent, holding that the requirement of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Rent Act bad not been satisfied. In revision, it is contended that the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Rent Act has not been satisfied. That sub-section reads as follows iNo suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against a tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. It is, therefore, contended that no notice was given for the arrears of rent, which were due on the date of the suit. A not...
Tag this Judgment!KurbanhusseIn Ibrahimji Mithiborwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR407(Guj)
Divan, J.1. This reference arises out of a notice served on the assessee under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant assessment year was 1949-50 and the previous year for the purposes of assessment was S. Y. 2004, ending with November 1, 1948. Long prior to the issue of the notice under section 34, assessment for the year 1949-50 had been completed under section 23 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); and thereafter on February 28, 1958, notice under section 34 of the Act was issued upon the assessee. The notice proceeded as follows : 'Whereas I have reason to believe that your income assessable to Income-tax for the year ending 31st of March, 1949, has : (a) escaped assessment, (b) been under-assessed. I hereby require you to deliver to me not letter than 5th April, 1958, or within 35 days of the receipt of this notice, a return in the attached form of your total income and total word income assessable for the said your ending ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Gujarat Vs. Jakisondas Bhukandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR501(GJ); [1967]66ITR515(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. The short question of law which arises in this reference turn on the construction of an order passed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee is a firm which was originally constituted under a deed of partnership dated 30th October, 1957, and it appears that for the assessment year prior to the assessment year 1961-62 with which we are concerned in the present reference, it was registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. There was a change in the constitution of the assessee from the commencement of Samvat year 2016, being the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1961-62, and a new partnership deed dated 5th March, 1960, was executed between the partners. On 29th June, 1961, a notice under section 22(2) calling for a return of income for the assessment year 1961-62 was served on the assessee but the assessee neither filed a return of its income nor applied for extension of time to file its return. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, proceeded to ma...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Kalidas Devraj and ors. Vs. Patel Kuverji Asharam
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj149; (1969)GLR535
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The applicants in revision filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage said to have been executed by their ancestor in 1899 in favour of the ancestor of the opponent. According to them, a copy of the document was produced in another suit and the record was In the High Court, The lower Court allowed a witness from the High Court to be called to produce a copy of the mortgage deed said to have been produced in suit No. 109/59. When the witness came from the High Court and produced the whole record, the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Dhran-gadhra passed an order that the whole record should be returned. When a witness is summoned to produce a document, the document produced must be kept on record in order to enable the party calling for it to prove it at a subsequent stage. It Is ordinarily not proved on the very day. First of all, a document which is called for to be produced by a witness must be proved and kept on record. The question of returning that document comes later. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Jiviben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)0GLR495; [1968]69ITR219(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This reference at the instance of the Commissioner raises the question whether a certain payment made by the assessee to his agent is an admissible item of expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The question arises out of an assessment made on the assessee as an individual for the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant account year being the calendar year 1960. The assessee was a partner in a firm called Messrs. Halar Salt and Chemical Works since 1950. The firm underwent several changes in its constitution from time to time and during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, the constitution of the firm was as set out in a partners deed dated 2nd November, 1959, executed by and between the partners. This partnership deed came into force from 1st November, 1959, and under the partnership deed the firm consisted of four partner of whom the assessee was one and two minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »