Gujarat Court July 1968 Judgments
Maharao Shri Madansinhji Vs. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Collector ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj270; (1969)10GLR870
Shelat, J. 1. In pursuance of a notification as per Ex. 54 dated 8-7-49 Issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act', certain lands from the villages of Ravapur, Ugedi, Gaduli, Dayapur, Madh and other villages were acquired for putting up Manjal-Lakhpat Road, Of those lands, the lands which came to be acquired from the villages of Ravapur and Ugedi belonged to His Highness the Maharao of Kutch, The lands from Ravpur admeasured 24 acres 17 gunthas and those of Ugedi admeasured 16 acres 33 gunthas. The claim for compensation in respect of those lands under acquisition was made by His Highness the Maharao of Kutch before the Land Acquisition Officer, Nakhatrana. Those lands were, in the opinion of the Land Acquisition Officer, Kharaba lands in the sense that they were waste lands and that way unfit for any use. He, therefore, allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2-25nP. per one acre of land. Feeling dissatisfied with that award, the ref...
Tag this Judgment!Collector, Baroda and anr. Vs. Haridas Maganlal Parikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj91; (1969)GLR412
1. The land bearing S. No. 70 admeasuring 3 vighas 1 vasa (1 acre 32 gunthas) situated in the limits of the village of Jetalpur in Baroda Taluka belonging to the respondents came to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of houses for the members of the staff of the Electricity Board, at Baroda, in pursuance of a notification issued on 11-4-60 under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'. Jetalpur village adjoins the Alkapuri area of Baroda City. The owners of that land claimed Rs. 98,010 by way of compensation under Section 23 of the Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who awarded in all Rs. 9,995-80 nP, inclusive of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent on the amounts of compensation. It was valued at the rate of Rs. 4800 per one acre of land. Feeling dissatisfied with that award, a reference was made under Secti0on 18 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer at their instance in the Court of the District Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Lalita Vs. Shardaben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj37
Shelat, J.1. This appeal raises a short, yet an important point as to whether the decision of the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) passed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is appealable to the High Court under Section 54 of the Act, and if not, whether any such decision (where the amount or subject-matter involved is less than Rs. 10,000) is appealable, and if so, only to the High Court or to the Court of the District Judge, under whom it is subordinate. The lands bearing S. Nos. 120, 243, 163, 170, 236, 237, 228 and 227 came to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening the National Highway No. 8 from Bareja to Ahmedabad. The claim for compensation was made before the Special Lenad Acquisition Officer at Ahmedabad and the compensation was awarded to the claimants as per the award Ex. 2 produced in the case. Of the various claimants Nos. 1, 4, 6, 10, 12 and 14 were the landlords, while the others were tenants. There arose a dispute amongst the landlords and te...
Tag this Judgment!Mansa Nagar Panchayat and anr. Vs. A.K. Chakravarty Dist. Development ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR88
Akbar S. Sarela, J.1. These two Special Civil Applications Nos. 880/68 and 898/68 raise an identical question of law namely what is the effect of the amendment made to Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act No. VI of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) by Section 9 of the Gujarat Act No. I of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). In substance the question is: does the amendment go to extend for a full period of 5 years the term of a Panchayat the term of which has already been extended, for less than a year, by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 17.2. The facts in both the petitions are similar and it would be enough to state the facts of Special Civil Application No. 880/68. That application concerns the Mansa Nagar Panchayat which is the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman of the said Nagar Panchayat. The general elections of that Panchayat too...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Starch Products Lld. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR907
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These petitions raise an interesting question of construction of Rule 81(3) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1921. The petitioners are owners in some petitions and lessees in others, of diverse pieces of land situate within the limits of Ahmedabad City. They have put up buildings on these pieces of land and are using them for industrial purposes. One of them, namely, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6 of 1968, has a starch factory while the others have textile mills on the respective pieces of land. Prior to the revision of the assessment impugned in these petitions, N.A. assessment was levied on these pieces of land at the rate of two pies per square yard. Since the period fixed for this assessment expired on different dates the Collector issued notices to the petitioners for revision of the assessment. The revision was sought to be made under Rule 81(3) on the ground that the petitioners' lands were situate in an exceptionally favourable position and th...
Tag this Judgment!New Saurashtra Vanaspati Co., Morvi Vs. B.A. Maharaja, Sales Tax Offic ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC92(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner, New Saurashtra Vanaspati Company, Morvi, challenges under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 5/6th April 1968, holding the petitioner-firm to be a successor of the Commercial Sales Agency, hereinafter referred to as 'C.S.A.', and the notice of demand dated 10th April, 1968, issued to the petitioner-firm calling upon them to pay up the tax dues of the C.S.A. amounting to Rs. 5,23,381.49 P. 2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under : The Morvi Vegetable Products Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the company', carried on the business of manufacturing hydrogenated vegetable oils and other allied products in its factory at Morvi up to 31st March, 1955. The company was marketing its vanaspati oil under 'Tulsi' and 'Ranjit' brand labels. The company thereafter invited offers for lease of its factory and gave its factory on lease to the Commercial Sales Agency, which was another distinct partnership firm, on 1s...
Tag this Judgment!Kalaria Oil Mills Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC477(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. The first petitioner in this special civil application is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and the second petitioner is a partner of the first petitioner-firm. The respondent is the Sales Tax Officer at Jamnagar. The first petitioner was constituted as a partnership firm on 8th November, 1960, with the object of carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling vegetable oils. On 8th November, 1960, the first petitioner-firm purchased the machinery of M/s. Kailas Oil Mills by a sale deed also bearing the date 8th November, 1960. The amount paid by the first petitioner-firm for the purchase of that machinery was Rs. 35,001. M/s. Kailas Oil Mills from whom the petitioner-firm purchased the machinery was a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing vegetable oils and also in the business of purchasing and selling groundnuts and groundnut oil. According to the petitioners, at the time when the machinery was purchased on 8th Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Sohanlal Vs. J.H. Shah, Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Bran ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC507(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting question as to whether on the death of a dealer his heir or legal representative could be assessed to sales tax under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the ground that he continued the deceased dealer's business. 2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under :- The petitioner is the partnership firm of Messrs Champaklal and Sohanlal which carries on business of selling biris and cigarettes in Ahmedabad. Shivratan, the father of one of the partners, Champaklal, had migrated from Pakistan in 1947-48 and was carrying on business in biris, cigarettes etc. as a proprietor. He died in November, 1957, when Champaklal was aged about 13 or 14 years. Champaklal since 1958 continued this business in alleged partnership with Sohanlal. It appears that the premises of the business of the petitioner were raided on 18th August...
Tag this Judgment!B. Kanjibhai and ors. Vs. Mohanraj Rajendrakumar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj32; (1970)0GLR140
ORDER1. Civil Revision Application No. 585 of 1968 is filed by the petitioners who were the original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in a Civil Suit NO. 3787 of 1966, filed by the plaintiff-opponent M/s. Mohanraj Rajendrakumar, for recovery of Rs. 1415.68 the price of goods sold by the latter to the former. It was the plaintiff-opponent's say that the deceased Kanjibhai Jethabhai was running a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. B. Kanjibhai. It was a cloth business done at Bombay. The deceased owed to the opponent the said amount for the price of the goods sold. Etc. The defendants Nos. 2 to 5 i.e. the present petitioners were partners by holding out of the said firm M/s. B. Kanjibhai, the defendant No. 1 (petitioner No. 1) and hence they were liable for the suit amount. They had also claimed over and above the said amount Rs. 73.50 by way of interest and Rs. 25/- as notice charges. In all, the suit claim was for Rs. 1514.18.2. Civil Revision Application No. 586 of 1968 is filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Laxmidas Karman Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC497(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this special civil application are as follows :- The petitioner is a resident of Plasva village in Junagadh District. He is an agriculturist and owns agricultural lands bearing survey numbers situate on the outskirts of Plasva village. The petitioner is not an authorized dealer or a commission agent and, according to him, he has not carried out any regular business or trade of buying or selling any taxable commodity; and thus none of the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) applied to him. According to the petitioner, he has never been assessed to sales tax within the State of Gujarat and, therefore, he has no liability to pay any sales tax to the respondents, viz., the State of Gujarat, the Sales Tax Officer, Junagadh, and the Circle Officer for Sales Tax Recovery. Junagadh. According to the petitioner, he is a creditor of one Bhagwanji Tulsidas, who was the sole owner and proprietor of a concern known ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »