Gujarat Court July 1967 Judgments
Galabji Khodaji and ors. Vs. Moosamiya Imam Haiderbux and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR1018
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the tenants of land bearing S. Nos. 141 and 142 situated in village Vasna. The said land was acquired for the purposes of a Co-operative Housing Society under notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated the 10th December 19S2. Thereafter by a notification under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated the 25th of May 1953, applying emergency clause, the possession of the said land was taken over from the petitioners. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were then taken before the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad who fixed Rs. 65826.12 P. as compensation of the land acquired. As there were disputes regarding the apportionment of the compensation amongst the claimants, the amount was forwarded to the Court, now the City Civil Court for apportionment between the parties under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The opponents Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 to 13 claim as Inamdars ...
Tag this Judgment!Lohana Vasantlal Devchand and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj252; 1968CriLJ1277; (1968)GLR1052; (1968)0GLR1053
ORDER(1) This is a revision petition, filed by the three petitioners, who were the original accused No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in a Criminal Case No. 686 of 1966 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 were convicted of an offence, punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused No. 2, i.e., the petitioner No. 2 was convicted for attempting to commit that offence, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot, Shri Rajni M. S. Patel.(2) The petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to suffer 11/2 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer 6 months simple imprisonment. The petitioner No. 3 was sentenced to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 400 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer 4 months' simple imprisonment. The petitioner No. 2 is sentenced to suffer 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in defau...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Vrajlal Barot Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj218; 1968CriLJ1173; (1968)GLR886
(1) This is a an appeal, filed by the original accused, who has been convicted of offences, punishable under Section 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer the nine months' rigorous imprisonment and there months' rigorous imprisonment for the said offences respectively. He is also sentenced a pay of fine of Rs. 300 in addition to sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to suffer one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine, if recovered, Rs. 150 are ordered to be paid to Shankerlal Chhabildas by way of compensation for the injuries caused to him. This order has been passed by the learned City Magistrate, 9th Court, Shri N. R. Tatia in a Criminal Case No. 464 of 1965.(2) The prosecution story is briefly stated as under:--The injured Shankerlal Chhablidas Barot and the appellant Jayantilal Vrajlal Barot are in two opposite factions of their community. The injured Shankerlal ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmad Umar Abdul Rahim Narmavala and ors. Vs. Shah Manilal Gokaldas, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR104
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The applicants before me in this Civil Revision Application had filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad being civil suit No. 3039 of 1958 against the present three opponents for taking possession of the suit premises from them. Opponent No. 1 is a firm and opponent No. 2 is the owner thereof. Opponent No. 3 is also afirm. The case of the plaintiffs was that the first two opponents had passed a rent-note on the 31st of March 1955 in respect of the suit premises. The monthly rent fixed was Rs. 61-12-0. The suit was filed for eviction on various grounds but all these need not be stated for the purpose of deciding this Civil Revision Application. Suffice it to say that amongst those grounds, plaintiff claimed the possession on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement and also on the ground that the defendants were not using the said property for the purpose for which it was let and that opponent No. 3 was using it as a godown for storing goods of him...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hiralal Mohanlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR659
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Reference raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the construction of Sections 271(1) and 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The assessee who is assessed in the status of an individual returned a total income of Rs. 8, 383/- for the assessment year 1960-61, the relevant account year being Samvat Year 2015. The return was admittedly filed by the assessee before 1st April 1962 being the date of commencement of the new Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the figure of total income returned by the assessee and determined the total income to be Rs. 33, 307/- by an assessment order made on 24th November 1952 after the commencement of the new Act. The Income-tax Officer was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceeding that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and he, therefore, made a note to the following effe...
Tag this Judgment!Gunvantlal Mangaldas and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)0GLR955; [1968]68ITR740(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. The same question has been referred by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in each of these three references and we will dispose of them by this common judgment. The interesting question which arises in these three references is as to the effect of the repeal of the Act by the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 25 of 1965, the assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year is 1962-63. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee by a demand notice under section 18A (1), dated June 10, 1961, to pay advance tax in four equal instalments falling due on June 15, 1961, September 15, 1961, December 15, 1961, and March 15, 1962. For the purposes of this judgment, the amount which the assessee was called upon to pay is not relevant. The assessee failed to pay the instalment which fell due on December 15, 1961. The Income-tax Officer req...
Tag this Judgment!Gandhi Bhupatlal Jagjivan Vs. Shah Shukhlal Varshidas Nanalal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR194
V.R. Shah, J.1. In this revision application, the petitioner is the original plaintiff and the opponents are the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Suit No. 91 of 1961 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendranagar. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of two shops. He entered into a partnership for business with the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and permitted that partnership to do its business in the shops taken on rent by him. The partnership has been dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated September 23, 1958 and according to the terms of this deed of dissolution the opponents agreed to pay Rs. 10800/- being the amount due to the petitioner on accounts and to hand over possession of the suit shop which is one of the two shops. This amount of Rs. 10800/- was made payable by instalments and the first instalment of Rs. 2000/-was agreed to be paid on Ashad Sud 1 of Samvat Year 2015 and the remaining amount was to be paid on Maha Vad 30 of Samvat Year 2016. The documen...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Shobasingh and Sons Vs. Saurashtra Iron Foundary and Steel Works ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj276; (1968)9GLR932
ORDER(1) This revision application raises a question of jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior division) at Bhavanagar to grant reliefs asked for in Civil Suit No. 423 of 1962 filed by the present opponent against the applicant. The parties had entered into correspondence whereby the opponent had placed an order for 24 Semi Chilled Cast Iron Rolls which the present applicant had agreed to supply on certain terms. The opponent had paid Rs. 4,000/- as advance to the applicant. After some inordinate delay, goods were supplied but they were found not in accordance with the sample or as per the terms of the contract and the opponent refused to take the delivery of the goods and the goods were then carried by the applicant to Bombay. It may be mentioned that the opponent firm is at Bhavanagar while the applicants are of Bombay. The opponent ultimately filed the above said suit against the applicant for the return of Rs. 4000/- which were given as advance and also claimed Rs. 3,...
Tag this Judgment!Vora Salehbahi Gulambhai and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR340
Y.R. Shah, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the decisions by this Court (Divan J.) in Second Appeals Nos. 760 of 1960 and 757 of 1960 respectively. The question about the application of the principles of res-judicata arising in these two appeals was negatived by Divan, J. in those two Second Appeals. The facts necessary to understand the points which arise in these Appeals are as follows:2. The plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 1224 of 1954, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda who are appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 1966 claimed to have obtained a right to cut certain trees standing on 32 survey numbers mentioned in the plaint and also on survey No. 200 of the village Jinjarvani in Chhotaudepur Taluka by two documents dated 25th April, 1954, executed by the Jagirdars of the village. Jiajarvani was admittedly a proprietary Jagir village which would mean that the Jagirdars were the owners of the soil also. It is not disputed that these Jagir...
Tag this Judgment!Matubhai Chunilal Patel Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR60
B.J. Divan, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 256(1) of the Indian Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year was 1962-63, the 'previous year' being calender year ending on December 31, 1961. The assessee derived income from various sources, viz., interest on securities, dividends and share of profits of two Partnership Firms. These two firms, M/s Dhirajlal Khushaldas & Brothers and Dhirajlal Chunilal & are concerned in the present Reference with the firm of Khushaldas & Bros. The assessee owned a car and in his individual assessment he claimed 50% of his running expenses and 50% of the depreciation, aggregating to Rs. 6024/- as deductiable expenditure contending that the motor-car was used by him for the discharge of his duties as a, partner in the partnership concern of M/s Dhirajlal Khushaldas & Bros. This claim of Rs. 6024/-was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer firstly on the ground that though there wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »