Gujarat Court August 1967 Judgments
Balkrishna Dwarkadas Vyas and ors. Vs. Gujarat Housing Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ824Guj
Vakil, J.1. Special Civil Applications Nos. 468 and 683 of 1962 raise common questions of law and facts and they can be disposed of by one judgment. The learned advocates for the parties have also consented to both the petitions being dealt with by a common judgment. We shall however state some special facts of the respective petitions where they need a separate handling. In both the petitions, the challenge is directed against circular annexure D read with circular annexure C in Special Civil Application No. 486 of 1962. The said circulars are annexures C and D, respectively, in Special Civil Application No. 683 of 1962 and in this judgment, reference will be made hereafter to these circulars as annexure D read with annexure C. These circulars were issued by the Commissioner of Gujarat Housing Board consequent upon certain resolution mentioned in the said circulars of the Gujarat Housing Board. By the said circulars, rules were circulated amongst the employees whereby the seniority li...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Labour ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: (1968)GLR815; (1968)ILLJ670Guj
Bakshi, J. 1. These three petitions raise a question of importance as regards the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with industrial disputes to decide a dispute which arises between a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and a servant of such society. In Special Civil Application No. 585 of 1963, respondent 2 was working as an additional supervisor in the Dasada branch of the petitioner who is the Gujarat State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, Ltd. The services of respondent 2 were terminated by the petitioner and it was the case of respondent 2 that his services were terminated by way of victimization on account of his trade union activities. His case was also that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the order terminating his services was passed. For these grievances, respondent 2 had written an approach letter on 20 August, 1962 but his request was turned down. He, therefore, made an application to the labour court for quashing...
Tag this Judgment!Madanbhai Ramjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)GLR749; (1968)0GLR749; (1967)IILLJ813Guj
Bhagwati, C.J.1. The short question which arises in this petition is whether an order made by a District Magistrate appointing a person as police-patel with effect from a future date can be validly revoked by him before the arrival of the future date. On September 28, 1966 an order was passed by respondent 2 who is the District Magistrate, Surat, appointing the petitioner as police-patel of village Mubarakpur, Taluka Nizar, District Surat, for a period of five years 'from the date he takes the charge.' However, before the charge police-patel was taken by the petitioner, respondent 2 on a complaint received from one Devidas Kanjibhai, found that the petitioner had turned hostile in a prohibition case and he, therefore, by an order dated November 16, 1966 cancelled the earlier order dated September 28, 1966. The petitioner thereupon preferred the present petition challenging the order of cancellation passed by respondent 2. 2. The main contention of the petitioner was that as soon as the...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Ratnaji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ97
N.G. Shelat, J.[After considering the evidence, the Judge proceeds--Ed,]. * * * *6. The fact about Francis having died on 1-3-67 as a result of injuries said to have been caused by the accused with a stick on his head on the previous evening is no longer in dispute. What is, however, urged by Mr. Vin, the learned advocate for the appellant-accused, is that the act was committed in the exercise of his right of private defence and that way he is not guilty for the offence in question by reason of Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code. HIS contention was that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly considered the extent of proof that any such plea raised by the accused requires and about his having not properly appreciated the evidence of the main eye-witnesses in the case. According to him, the evidence of witness Ghanshyamalal Ex. 6 clearly establishes the deceased Francis being the aggressor at the incident and it was he who came out duly armed with a stick and gave the first blow to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat I Vs. Bhogilal Maganlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR288(Guj)
1. This reference arises out of an assessment to wealth-tax made on the assessee for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63, the relevant valuation dates being 31st March of each of the years 1957 to 1962. The reference involves the question of constriction of a trust deed dated 8th October, 1945, made by the assessee's wife, Chanchalbai, hereinafter referred to as value of Rs. 1,75,000 and a fixed deposit of Rs. 25,000 on the trust set out in clause 1, 2 and 3 of the trust deed. These clauses ran, inter alia, as under : 'The trustees shall out of the income of the trust property pay in the first instance all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the in or about the recovery of such income and all other costs, charges and expenses incurred by them and properly payable out of the said income and shall pay the balance of the said income to the said Chanchalbai, the settlor during her life until her death, and on the death of the settlor, leaving surviving her, her husband, the said S...
Tag this Judgment!Chooharmal Wadhuram (Decd.) (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR88(Guj)
Bhagwati, Actg C.J. 1. The assessment for six assessment years, namely, 1946-47, 1947-48, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-1954, were the subject-matter of different appeals before the Tribunal, but the present reference relates only to the assessments for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and we will, therefore, state only so much of the facts as relate to the assessments for those assessments years. The assessee is one Chooharmal Wadhuram represented by Daulatram and others as his legal representatives. Prior to the partition of Indian which took place on 15th August, 1947, the assessee was residing in Karachi and he carried on business in partnership with one Muljibhai in the name of Daulatram Chooharmal at Karachi. Subsequent to the partition of India, the assessee and Muljibhai came down to India and it is common ground that the partnership between them was dissolved by an agreement dated 7th November, 1948. The record does not show that the assessee was assessed to incom...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturbhai Ramchand Panchal and Brothers and ors. Vs. Firm of Mohanlal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj110; (1968)GLR729
ORDERJ.B. Mehta, J.1. These two cross revision applications are filed respectively by the original plaintiff and by the original defendants 1 and 3 against the decree passed by the City Civil Court, giving partial possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, and to that extent modifying the trial Court's decree which was for possession of the entire suit premises. The short facts which have given rise to these revision applications are as under: The plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The plaintiff is the manufacturer and dealer in steel furniture and steel goods. The plaintiff has a factory in the interior of Ghanchi's Wadi near Pankor Naka where the steel goods and furniture are manufactured. As the plaintiff was in need of premises on the main road of Pankor Naka to open a show room and a sales office for its steel goods and furniture, the plaintiff firm purchased the suit house in an auction sale held on 26th October 1956. The final sal...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Patel and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR782(Guj)
Divan, J.1. In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question has been referred to the High Court at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 24,500, Rs. 49,865 and Rs. 18,000, being the excess over the amount of Rs. 12,000 paid to Shri A.J. Patel in the respective assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1961-62, are properly allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated in the then Baroda State on December 18, 1944. The relevant assessment years are 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1961-62, the corresponding previous years being calendar years 1957, 1958 and 1960. For the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee-company claimed a deduction of Rs. 36,500 paid as remuneration to its managing director, A.J. Patel. Similarly, for the assessment year 1959-60, the deduction...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Jamadar Mansingrao Bhagvat Rao
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ557; (1969)GLR537; (1968)IILLJ55Guj
1. This is a revision application, filed by the State under Ss. 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Narol, Sri R. C. Ierani, in a Special Case No. 2 of 1964, dismissing the prosecution of the accused-opponent for the offences, punishable under Ss. 161, 165 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. That prosecution was dismissed on the ground that the prosecution has been launched beyond a period of six months, prescribed in S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. The facts leading rise to this revision petition are briefly stated as under. 3. On 21 July, 1963, the opponent was working as a police head constable in the Police Department of the Government of Gujarat and was attached to the police station at Dehgam. As such, he was a public servant. The offences, punishable under Ss. 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, were alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Jagjiwandas Vs. Lakhiram Haridasmal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj193; (1968)GLR161
Bakshi, J.(1) This appeal raises a question of some importance regarding the applicability of Section 52 and Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act. A brief statement of some facts would be helpful in understanding the question. The appellant was a simple mortgagee of the property of respondent No. 2 and he filed Suit No. 80 of 1954 for the realization of his mortgage monies by sale of the mortgaged property. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit on 29th June 1955 and a final decree was passed on 27th January 1956. The appellant filed execution application No. 18 of 1956 to execute his decree and the property was sold by auction by the Court on 20th July 1959 and was purchased by the appellant. After the appellant had obtained the final decree on January 27, 1956, as stated above, respondent No. 2 gave a lease of the property to respondent No. 1 for a period of three years on 17th January 1957 and took in advance rent for the three years. The auction-purchaser filed an appl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »