Gujarat Court October 1968 Judgments
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Himatram Ramdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: (1969)GLR377; (1969)IILLJ529Guj
Shah, J. 1. This revision application raises a short point for decision about the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try a suit filed under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) constituted under the provisions of the Act. The opponent, who was original plaintiff, is a person who is conducting a weaving factory, Sri Vishnu Fabrics Weaving Factory at Surat. The petitioner-Corporation gave a notice to the opponent on 15 April 1958 calling upon him to pay special contribution, not only in respect of employees in his own factory, but also in respect of employees in other six factories which, according to the other six factories which, according to the opponent, were different from the factory owned by him and with which according to the opponent he had no concern. The opponent gave a reply to the...
Tag this Judgment!Budhukhokhar Shahbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR641
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. The question arising in this petition lies in a very narrow compass and a brief statement of the facts giving rise to the petition is sufficient to explain how it arises. The petitioners were formerly girasdars holding lands in five villages, namely, Kutiyana, Mandva, Pasvali, Ujad Thepda and Sagras situate in Kutiyana Taluka, Junagadh District. Several of these lands were being cultivated by tenants and on the coming into force of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, the tenants made applications to the Mamlatdar under Section 28 of the Act for acquisition of occupancy rights in respect of the lands held by them as tenants. Section 29 provided as to how the Mamlatdar should deal with an application under Section 28 and it said that on receipt of such application the Mamlatdar shall issue notice to the girasdar concerned, and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner and after making such inquiry, acco...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Bharucha and Co. Vs. G.S. Venkatesan Income-tax Officer, Circle I ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR513(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution raises questions of some importance under the Income-tax Act. To appreciate them it is necessary to state the facts giving rise to the petition in some fullness. The petitioner-firm at all material times consisted of three partners and it carried on business, inter alia, at Bhavnagar. The assessment of the petitioner-firm for the assessment year 1949-50, the relevant account year being Samvat Year 2004, was completed by Income-tax Officer by an assessment order, dated 30th May, 1951. The petitioner-firm not having applied for registration was not registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'), but the Income-tax Officer being of the opinion that it was more advantageous to the revenue to proceed under section 23(5) (b), treated the petitioner-firm, though unregistered, as registered for the purpose of assessment and assessed the three partners by carrying the share ...
Tag this Judgment!Kikabhai SamsuddIn Vs. Collector of Estate Duty, Gujarat, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj326; [1969]73ITR241(Guj)
Divan, J.1. In this Reference madeat the instance of the accountable person by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question has been referred to us:--'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- representing the value of five immovable properties gifted by the deceased to his five sons by five Gift Deeds, dated the 25th September 1951, has been correctly included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.'This Reference arises out of the estate duty assessment pertaining to the estate of Haji Samsuddin Rajabali. who died on June 30, 1954. Prior to his death, the deceased had executed five Gift Deeds, all dated September 25, 1951: and by each Gift Deed he gifted different immoveable properties mentioned in the relevant Gift Deed to each of his five sons. At the time...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Chandanben Jivanlal Vs. L.D. Joshi, Collector, Bhavnagar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR448(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. One Parmanand Narsidas Shah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was a partner with his nephew, Nagindas Jadavji, in two firms, namely, Messrs, Jadavji Narsidas & Company (Pedhi) and Messrs. Jadavji Narsidas (Cotton Department), which carried on business at 79, Masjid Bounder Road, Bombay-3. The deceased went out of the said two firms as from Aso Vad 30, Samvat year 2003, that is, 12th November, 1947, and led a retired life thereafter in Bhavnagar until his death on 11th November, 1951. During the time that the deceased was a partner of the said two firms as the said two firms were registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act'). The deceased was assessed in the status of an individual as non-resident in some years us as resident in others. When the deceased retired from the said two firms, the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 had not yet commenced and, subsequent to his retir...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorchandra Bhanushanker Vs. Bhavnagar Municipality and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj290; 1969CriLJ1248; (1969)GLR866
ORDERV.R. Shah, J.1. This reference arises out of the following circumstances.2. The complainant in this case is the Chief Officer of the Bhavnagar Borough Municipality and he filed a complaint against one Kishorchandra Bhanushanker for having constructed a shed without permission of the Municipality and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 153 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. The complaint was filed on 20-10-1966. The accused was given to understand that the case will be taken up on 8-11-1966. The Proceedings of the case show that on -11-1966, the plea of the accused was recorded and he pleaded not guilty to the charge. It appears that the case was adjourned for several times. Ultimately on 16-3-1967 the learned Magistrate recorded what purports to be a statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that the allegations are correct and that the accused has committed a mistake and he has construct ed the shed without permission. ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat Vs. Chandravadan Amratlal Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR416(Guj)
Divan, J.1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal : '(1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the gifts of Rs. 10,000 each to the three sons purported to have been made on October 20, 1946, were valid in law (2) Whether even if the gifts of Rs. 10,000 each were valid the same would be hit by the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 10 would apply to the gift of the sum of Rs. 24,000 (4) Whether the accumulated interest on the sum of Rs. 30,000 could be included in the computation of the principal value of the estate ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : This reference is in connection with the estate of Amritlal alias Bhailalbhai, who died on February 21, 1962. The deceased was a partner along with two other pers...
Tag this Judgment!Sakarchand Chhaganlal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR555(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference under the Estate Duty Act raises a question of considerable importance affecting transactions relating to buildings constructed by members of co-operative housing societies. The society with which we are concerned in this reference is Jain Merchants Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. One Chhaganlal Laxmichand (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was member of this society and he held certain shares in its share capital. Plot No. 1 was allotted to his as a member out of the land owned by the society and on the plot so allotted to him, he constructed a superstructure at his own cost. He had two sons by the name of Sakarchand and Ramanlal. On 8th March, 1951, and thereafter, he took certain steps in regard to the plot and the superstructure on it and the question is as to the true legal effect of what he did. First, on 8th March, 1951, he divided the plot into two parts, one marked plot No. 1 and the other marked plots Nos. 1-A and 1-B. It appear that t...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat Vs. Husenbhai Mohamedbhai Badri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1968
Reported in: [1970]76ITR14(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference raises a question relating to the applicability of section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in relation to the settlement made by on Essoofalli Ebrahimji. The settlement was made on 15th July, 1938, and the subject-matter of the settlement consisted of several freehold and leasehold immovable properties. The settlor had a wife by the name of Safiabai and two sons, namely, Mohmedbhai and Salabhai. The settlor appointed Bai Safiabai, Mohmedbhi and himself as the trustees of the settlement and settled the immovable properties described in the Schedule on certain trust, which, so far as material for the purpose of the present reference, were as follows : '6. After my death, whatever income may be realised shall be used and appropriated as follows by the trustees hereby appointed or any of the surviving trustees : The net income of the said trust estate, after paying the interest on debt due by me, shall be divided at the end of every year into three (equal) ...
Tag this Judgment!Narendrasingh Motilal Johary Vs. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR584
M.U. Shah, J.1. This is original defendant's appeal against the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 263 of 1959, by the learned District Judge, Baroda, awarding compensation to the plaintiff-respondent to the extent of Rs. 3, 9451-for an alleged breach by the defendant of a contract of service. The learned District Judge has thereby reversed the decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit that was passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baroda, in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1957, holding that the amount of damages stipulated in the relevant Clause 18 of the service agreement Ex. 52 was fixed in terrorem, and was unconscionable, unfair, one sided and unilateral and the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation in the matter.2. The relevant facts may first be briefly stated. The appellant-defendant named one Narendrasingh Motilal Johary, Ph. D. (Lon.), D.I.C., was appointed by the respondent Company named M/s. Karamchand Premchand (Private) Ltd., Proprietors of the concer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »