Gujarat Court July 1968 Judgments
Kanji Mulji Kanani Vs. Manglaben Parmanand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj308; (1969)GLR1011
ORDERJ.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision application filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the original opponent against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Okha Mandal at Dwarka in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1966, below Ex. 21, dated 8th November, 1967. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are briefly stated as under-- 3. The present opponent who is the wife of the petitioner, filed the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Application to allow her to file a suit In forma pauperis. The suit claim was in respect of recovery of arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,200/- A declaration was sought that she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from 2nd November. 1966 She claimed the relief in regard to both these claims against the person and also against the moveable and immoveable properties of the present petitioner She prayed that for her maintenance amounts that be awarde...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Trading Co. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC107(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. This reference raises an interesting question as to the true and proper interpretation of entry 21A of Schedule E under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in respect of 3 articles, viz., (1) Palmolive shampoo, (2) Colgate tooth- brush and (3) Colgate tooth-paste. The Tribunal has referred to this Court the following two questions : '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Palmolive shampoo (large size), sold under bill No. 505 dated 15th July, 1964, is a toilet article within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E or is soap within the meaning of entry 28 of Schedule C or is covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and liable to tax accordingly. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case (i) Colgate tooth-paste and (2) Colgate tooth-brush sold under bill No. 505 dated 15th July, 1964, are toilet articles within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E or are covered by en...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC29(Guj)
Divan, J.1. In this reference under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following two questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal :- '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of entry 44H of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, shelving rack sold under the bill dated December 30, 1964, by the applicant is iron and steel furniture within the meaning of the aforesaid entry (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of entry 44H of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, binstak sold under the bill dated December 30, 1964, by the applicant is iron and steel furniture within the meaning of the aforesaid entry ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows :- The applicant before us is the assessee and is a private limited company manufacturing iron and steel products, component parts and accessories. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Thakordas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: (1968)0GLR886; [1969]23STC11(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. In this reference under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following two questions have been referred to us by the Sales Tax Tribunal :- '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the principles of natural justice were not violated by the Sales Tax Officer in not recording statements of A. Alibhai and Company and the Angadia and not giving opportunity to the applicant-firm of cross-examining them. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in making an estimate of the turnover of sales higher than the detected suppression of sales.' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : 3. The applicant-firm, the assessee, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and dealing in art-silk ribbon. The said firm as assessed for two periods from 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1956, and 1st April...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›