Gujarat Court September 1968 Judgments
Kantilal Trikamlal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR353(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference raise a question of some importance depending for its determination on the inter-action of the provisions of Hindu law and the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Prior to 3rd January, 1950, one Trikamlal Vadilal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), his son, Kantilal, and his two grandsons by a pre-deceased son, namely, Lalbhai and Parshottam, constituted a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition between the deceased and Kantilal, on the one hand, and Lalbhai and Parshottam, on the other, by a deed of partition dated 3rd January, 1950, and as a result of the partition, certain movable and immovable properties including a share in two partnership firms, namely Messrs. Manilal Premchand and Messrs. Chimanlal Premchand, came to the share of the deceased and Kantilal. These movable and immovable properties continued to be held by the deceased and Kantilal as members of a joint and undivided Hindu family until 16th November, 1953, when an instrument styled 're...
Tag this Judgment!Makwana Mohanlal Punabhai and anr. Vs. C.H. Dave
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR129
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. These are two petitions filed by some of the voters to the elections of the Bhavnagar Municipality challenging the validity of Rule 43 of the Gujarat Municipalities Election Rules, 1964 pursuant to which on a candidate being elected to more than one seats having resigned from the other seat, a candidate obtaining the next highest number of votes was declared elected to the seat which became vacant on account of the resignation. The Bhavnagar Municipality consists of 40 members to be elected in accordance with the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). In special Civil Application No. 773 of 1968 the facts are that from Panvadi 'A' Ward, two female voters contested the elections on the female reserved seats (1) Patel Niruben; and (2) Mrs. Chandrabhaga Karelia, respondent No. 3. Patel Niruben having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected on the reserved seat in the Panvadi 'A' Ward. In the Karchaliapara (West) Ward, two...
Tag this Judgment!Official Trustee Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR512(Guj)
Divan, J.1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question has been referred us by the Central Board of Direct Taxes : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 4,50,660 representing the entire value of the trust properties is chargeable to estate duty as property passing on the death of the deceased under section 5 of the Act, or deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under section 12 of the Act, or only 65 per cent. thereof or 50 per cent, thereof.' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The reference arises out of the estate duty assessment concerning the estate of Miss Mary K. Nariman (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who died on June 13, 1958. By a deed, dated March 23, 1936, the deceased and her sister, Jarbanoo, who pre-deceased Mary, settled certain shares and securities of the then value of Rs. 2,48,000 on trust; and the official trustee of...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Chandulal Shah Vs. Industrial Court, Ahmedabad and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ251Guj
Desai, J. 1. This petition for a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order is directed against the order passed by the industrial court, respondent 1, in Appeal (I.C.) No. 95 of 1966. The petitioner who was the appellant before the industrial court was employed as a kanta karkun by respondent 2, Ahmedabad Laxmi Cotton Mills Company, Ltd., Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the mills). An inquiry was held against him by the manager of the mills in 1964 on certain allegations which are not material for the purpose of this petition. At the conclusion of the inquiry an order was passed on 26 February, 1964, by which the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the mills. The petitioner challenged this order of dismissal in Appellant No. 580 of 1964 filed in the first labour court at Ahmedabad. The learned Judge held that the finding of the inquiry officer cannot be held to be perverse or totally unsustainable and further held that the order of dismissal passed against the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatrao Diyajirao Vs. Abdul Hamid Haji Ahmad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR112
J.B. Mehta, J.1. Both these revision applications raise common questions of law as to whether Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' applies to pending suits and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. In C.R.A. No. 759/65 the order of the trial Court has been confirmed by the District Court, Surat, and the view taken is that Section 11(4) is merely a procedural section and, therefore it can be invoked even in a pending suit. In C.R.A. No. 1018 of 1966, however, the Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad has confirmed the order of the Small Causes Court and has held that Section 11(4) created new obligations and fettered the right of defence and it could not have retrospective operation to a pending suit. The said two orders are, therefore, challenged in the present revision applications.2. Section 11(4) runs as under:Where any stage of a suit for recovery of rent, whether with ...
Tag this Judgment!Jenatbibi D/O. Husseinalli Niazalli Sayyed Vs. Kasambhai Nurbhai Radha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: (1970)11GLR22
A.R. Bakshi J.1. This matter arises out of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholka, respondent No. 2, decided by him on 24th April 1967. This order of respondent No. 2 was confirmed on 20th June 1967 by the learned District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, respondent No. 3. These orders are challenged and sought to be revised by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Sections 561A and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The lands in dispute are situated at Dholka and it is the case of the petitioner that she was in possession of the lands which was sought to be disturbed by respondent No. 1 whose case on the other hand was that he was in actual physical possession of the lands. It appears that some litigation was going on between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and there were disputes between them in respect of the lands. The petitioner gave an applica...
Tag this Judgment!Thakkar Vithalbhai Hargovind and anr. Vs. Kachhia Jagjivan Motilal (De ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR288
B.G. Thakor, J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the defendants against the decision and judgment of our learned brother, Bakshi, J. who was pleased to dismiss Second Appeal No. 1581 of 1960 which was also filed by the defendants. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership and for taking accounts. One of the defences taken in the suit was that the subject matter of the suit was referred to arbitration and that the arbitrator had made an award and that therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The question raised in Second Appeal was whether it was open to the defendants to plead the existence of an award as a bar to the maintainability of a suit. His Lordship Bakshi, J. was pleased to hold that under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, an award or an arbitration award could be treated as effective only if a decree was obtained on the award in accordance with the arbitration. The view taken was that an award w...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Gunvantlal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR498(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference under the Estate Duty Act raises a short question affecting the levy of estate duty on certain property forming the subject-matter of the settlement. The settlement we have to consider was made by one Gunvantlal Jivanlal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his wife, Bai Jasud, on 27th January 1951. The deceased settled a sum of Rs. 50,000 and certain policies of insurance on his life of the aggregate value of Rs. 2,00,000 of which the surrender value at the date of the settlement was Rs. 67,413-15-0 and Bai Jasud brought in a sum of Rs. 50,000 belonging to her in the settlement. The deceased and Bai Jasud were appointed trustees and the settlement declared that the trustees shall hold the trust funds upon the trusts and subject to the powers provisions declarations and agreements contained in the settlement. Clauses 3 and 4 of the settlement provided for the disposal of the income after meeting the expenses of management and preservation of imm...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaben S. Kapadia Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR171(Guj)
Divan, J.1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question has been referred to us by the Central Board of Direct Taxes : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 60,000, standing to the credit of the account of the deceased's brother, in the firm of M/s. Shantilal C. Kapadia, was correctly included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased.' 2. This reference arises out of the assessment for estate duty of the estate of Shantilal C. Kapadia, who died on February 20, 1957. On the death of the deceased, his widow, who is the applicant in this reference, filed a statement of account in the prescribed form, showing the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased at Rs. 1,39,199. The Assistant Controller determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 2,14,340 and, in arriving at the principal value, he added, inter alia, a sum of Rs. 60,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax, Gujarat I Vs. Karnaji Lumbaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR343(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. The question which arises in this reference lies in a very narrow compass but, in order to appreciate the question, it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise to the reference. The reference arises out of assessment of gift-tax made on the assessee as an individual for the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant account year being Samvat Year 2016, that is, 1st November, 1959, to 29th October, 1960. Prior to the relevant account year, the assessee and his four sons carried on business in partnership in the firm name of Messrs. K. L. Sons on the terms and conditions recorded in a partnership deed, dated 23rd November, 1953. The share of the assessee in the partnership was four annas in a rupee while the share of each of the four sons was there annas in a rupee. The business of the partnership consisted of buying and selling second-hand drums, case iron, iron scrap. etc., after carrying out necessary repairs. Besides the four sons who were partners with him in the pa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »