Gujarat Court June 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gandhi Gopaldas Gordhandas Vs. Bai Lalitabai Marghabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj270; (1971)0GLR492
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of execution proceedings.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under.The respondent who is the original decree-holder-landlord obtained against the appellant who is the original judgment-debtor-defendant decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1963 decided by the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Dwarka. The suit was filed for recovering arrears of rent and the parties arrived at a compromise in that suit.The compromise decree was, therefore, passed which provided for payment of arrears of rent by instalments specified therein. It also provided for the consequences of default in payment of decretal instalments. If the judgment-debtor failed to pay any one instalment the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the whole of the remaining amount in one lump sum and he would also be entitled to obtain vacant and actual possession of the suit premises shop No. 4 and godown No. 4. It further provided for the defendant continui...
Mehta Jagjivan Vanechand Vs. Doshi Vanechand Harakhchand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Guj6; (1971)0GLR487
1. Will a tenant who takes in a partner in a business run by him in rented premises incur the liability of being evicted on the ground that he has sublet or assigned his interest in the tenancy in favour of the partnership? It is this question which requires to be resolved in the present second appeal under section 28 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act. 1951 by the plaintiff landlord who has failed in both the lower Courts. The Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951, will be referred to as 'the Rent Act' in the course of this judgment.2. The appellant - plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 68 of 1958 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.), Morvi claiming a decree for eviction under section 13 (1) (e) of the Rent Act, which is in the following terms, against the respondents-defendants:'13. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied. * * * * * * * * * * * (e) that the tenant has, since the com...
Kuberdas Hargovindas Modi Vs. K.N. Lalchandani, Income-tax Officer, Ci ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR783(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition is directed against a notice dated 28th March, 1969, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Circle II, ward C. Ahmedabad, against the petitioner under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1960-61. In or about 1930, the petitioner purchased the entire areas forming the village of Sahijpur-Bogha in the District of Ahmedabad. The total area purchased by the petitioner comprised 1,332 acres. Out of this petitioner set apart 266 acres for building sites and divided it into 1,000 plots after laying to roads and providing other amenities. The petitioner thereafter started selling these plots from time to time and the sales effected by the petitioner went on for a number of years. In Samvat year 1991, being year of account corresponding to the assessment year 1936-37, the petitioner sold 208 plots and, as a result of the sales, he realised an agreegate sum of Rs. 65,870. The Income-tax Offi...
ishverlal and Bros. Vs. N.N. Seth, Income-tax Officer, Surat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1970
Reported in: [1972]85ITR414(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Ishverlal & Brothers, a partnership firm, has filed this application for obtaining a writ to quash and set aside the notices served upon it under section 148 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the reassessment of its income for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. 2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of four partners, who are inter-related as brothers. The firm is conducting its business at Surat. It is an admitted position that all the four partners of the petitioner-firm have equal shares in profit and loss of the business done by the firm. The petitioner-firm is constituted under the partnership deed dated 20th December, 1948. 3. It is an admitted position that up to the year of S. Y. 2013, which is equivalent to 23rd October, 1957, the petitioner had a branch at Bangalore and that the income earned by that branch at Bangalore was included in the income of the petitioner-firm up to the...
Mahendra Mills Ltd. Vs. P.B. Desai, Appellate Assistant Commissioner a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR52(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a textile mill carrying on its business of manufacturing textiles. By this petition it has prayed for obtaining an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order of rectification passed by the concerned Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 28th June, 1969, rectifying his assessment order for the assessment year 1960-61. 2. Short facts leading to this petition are that the assessment of the petitioner's income for the assessment year 1959-60 was undertaken by the concerned Income-tax Officer. During the course of the said assessment, the Income-tax Officer found that there was some discrepancy between the stock of cotton shown in the records of the petitioner and in the records of the State Bank of India, with whom the petitioner had hypothecated its said stock of cotton. This discrepancy was sought to be explained by the petitioner by contending that it had given an incorrect figure of its stock to the bank with a view to obtain hig...
Kasturbhai Lalbhai Vs. R.K. Malhotra, Income-tax Officer, Group Circle ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR188(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition raises a short but interesting question of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is whether a certain intimation received by the Income-tax Officer expressing the opinion of the audit department as to the correct interpretation of section 23(2) could be said to constitute 'information' on which the Income-tax Officer could act for the purpose of initiating proceedings for reassessment against the petitioner under section 147(b). The petitioner is an assessee owning two immovable properties, one in Ahmedabad and the other in Bombay. During the relevant year of account, corresponding to the assessment year 1965-66, both the properties were occupied by the petitioner and, in the words of the Income-tax Officer, they were 'self occupied properties'. The petitioner, in his assessment for the assessment year 1965-66, claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,052, being the municipal taxes, be deducted in determining the annual value of the properties ...
Kanbi Ladha Ukeda Vs. Joshi Jestaram Gangaram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj239; (1971)0GLR801
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1959 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Mandvi for redemption of mortgage. It appears that in or about 1943 A.D. the suit lands were mortgaged by the plaintiffs to the defendant by an unregistered mortgage-deed.2. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the suit for redemption was not maintainable because the mortgage was created by an unregistered document. He also raised pleas under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') and under the Bombay Inams (Kutch Area) Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Inams Abolition Act').3. The learned Trial Judge raised the necessary issues, recorded the evidence and arrived at the finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the lands and, therefore, he passed in favour of the plaintiffs the preliminary decree for redemption.4. The defendant ap...
Vohara Abbasali Mahomadalli Lakhawala Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj241; (1971)0GLR884
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed against the State of Bombay Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1956 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baroda for two substantive reliefs. The first relief which he sought was the declaration that the order or orders made by the State Government levying upon him penalty of Rs. 2568-2-0 were illegal, void and without authority. The second relief which he prayed for was that a perpetual injunction be issued restraining the State Government from withholding his deposit of Rs. 2451/-.2. The impugned orders which were made by the State Government were based upon certain allegations which the State Government made against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had entered into a contract with the State Government for felling, collection and removal of timber fire-wood etc. The plaintiff was to execute that contract and fell and remove the trees situate in Songir Coupe forest in Sankheda sub-range of Chhota-Udepur Sub-Division of Baroda District. The State...
Shantilal Jethalal Vyas and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR221
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioners herein who are the members of the Gujarat Bidi Karkhana Owners' Association, have filed this petition on their own behalf and on behalf of the Bidi Manufacturers of the State of Gujarat; and in this petition they have challenged the Notification, dated May 7, 1965, issued by the Government of Gujarat, fixing minimum wages in the scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, viz., employment in any tobacco (including Bidi making manufactory. The petitioners contend that for the various reasons which they have set out in the petition, this Notification is illegal and void and, therefore, they have prayed for a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus on the footing that the impugned Notification is ultra vires the Minimum Wages Act and also ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution of India. They have further asked for a declaration and they have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the State Government, it...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›