Gujarat Court September 1971 Judgments
Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel and ors. Vs. State of Guiarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-28-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ388; (1971)GLR968
P.N. Bhagawati, C.J.1. The controversy in these matters relates to the validity of an order dated 16th June. 1971 made by the Government of Gujarat under Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of a book in the Gujarati language instituted 'Extracts from Mao-Tse-Tung'. This book contains passages extracted from the speeches delivered at different times by Mao-Tse-Tune who is the acknowledged leader of Chinese Communist thought and at ore-sent the Chairman of the Peonies Republic of China, It is printed by Purushottam Murlidhar Brahmbhatt. Jayshree Mudran and published by Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel. Secretary of Shri Dinker Mehta Shasti Poorti Lokavat Jnankendra Trust. The Government of Guiarat, by an order dated 16th June. 1971 made in exercise of the power conferred under Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure declared every copy of this book to be forfeited to Government on the ground that it contained seditious matter, the publication of which is punishabl...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Shah Construction Co. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC64(Guj)
Sheth, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Himatnagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1961, dated 21st February, 1963. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under : The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, doing business as contractors. They had taken a contract for constructing an asphalt road on National Highway No. 8 from Raigadh to Ratanpur and from Himatnagar to Raigadh, from the Government. Exhibit 41 is the original tender which was signed by one of the partners of the firm and by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the Government. 3. As per the contract, Government had to supply to the contractors the necessary asphalt for the road. Accordingly, it was supplied by the Public Works Department of the State. Running bills were prepared. The contractors had to pay the price of those materials supplied. From the running bills of payments, in addition to the cost of materials,...
Tag this Judgment!Jethalal Motilal Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj131
Dave, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Narol dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:--The land bearing survey number 13 belonging to one Bai Kashi, widow of Nandlal Dalpatram situated in village Dani Limda beyond the municipal limits of the Ahemdabad city was acquired for the purpose of slums clearance under a notification, Ex. 26, published on 2-1-1958 in the Government Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The present plaintiff who asserted to the a lessee of about 3150 sq., yds., of land out of total area of 7502 sq., yds., comprised in the said survey number 13, was served with a notice, under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. The plaintiff appeared before the special land acquisition officer and submitted that as he was a lessee of the land under acquisition and as he was not served with a notice under Section 4 of the Act indi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1971
Reported in: [1973]91ITR393(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. These references raise an interesting question of law relating to the scope of ambit of the charging provision in relation to capital gains tax. The question arises out of the assessments to incme-tax made on the assessees for the assessment year 1963-64. Prior to 18th February, 1961, the assessees and seven other persons carried on business in partnership in the firm name of Prajapati Tiles Company. The business of the firm was the manufacture of Mangalore tiles and this business was being carried on by the firm ever since its inception on 13th January, 1953. There were disputes between the partners of the firm and as a result of these disputes, the assesses retired form the firm with effect from 18th February, 1962, leaving the other seven as continuing partners of the firm. The terms and conditions of retirement were recorded in document dated 18th February, 1962, executed by and between the partners. This document was in the form of minutes of the proceedings of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ambee India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rao Raja Jamirsinhji Dolatsinhji an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj137
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The first appeal is filed by the lessee original defendant No. 2 while the second appeal is filed by the State, original defendant No. 1. The plaintiff - respondent in both the cases in the Jagirdar of the concerned suit village. The learned Single Judge had confirmed the decree of the learned Assistant Judge, who had differed from the trial Judge and had allowed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of possession of the suit mine and for an injunction. The entire controversy has centered round the interpretation of the Paravan. Ex. 89, under which the plaintiff was by the then ruler of the Idar State granted two villages Techava and Achral on March 11, 1948. The Bombay Merged Territories and Area (Jagirs Abolition) Act. 1953, came into force on August 1, 1954 and it applied to this merged territory, because meanwhile from 1949 Idar State merged in the State of Bombay. There is no dispute that under the provisions of this Act the competent authority had declared this Jagi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-1 Vs. Manna G. Sarabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR153(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of an assessment to wealth-tax made on the assessee for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the relevant valuation dates being 31st March, 1957, and 31st March, 1958. The reference involves two questions : one is a question of construction of certain trust deeds executed by the assessee's aunt, Gira Sarabhai, and the other relates to the interpretation of section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee was born on 15th November, 1947, and on both the relevant valuation dates, she was a minor below the age of eighteen years. By a trust deed dated 12th September, 1956, Gira Sarabhai, aunt of the assessee, settled certain properties on the trusts set out in clause (2) of the trust deed which runs as follows : '(2) (a) The Trustees shall pay the net income of the Trust funds to the said Manna daughter of the Settlor's brother Gautam Sarabhai until she attains the age of thirty years provided however that during the minority of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanbhai Mahijibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Dolatram Chauharmal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj166
Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge. Senior Division, Nadiad, in Special Suit No.50 of 1964, dated 28th July 1966.2. The appellants are original defendants Nos. 1 to 12. Respondent No.2 Ramanlal Narandas is original defendant No.13, whose name has been deleted at the request of the appellants' Advocate. Respondent No.1 Dolatram Chauharmal is original plaintiff, (parties will be hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendants' as the case may be).3. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of his mortgage dues to the tune of Rs.1,22,980/- by sale of the mortgaged properties, described in Schedule 'A' attached to the plaint. A said suit was based on the mortgage deed, Ex.108, dated 29-9-1952, passed by defendant No.1 Narayanbhat Mahijibhai and one Ranchhodhai Bakorbhai, whose heirs and legal representatives are defendants Nos.2 to 12. 4-7. x x x x x 8. Mr. A.N.Surti, appearing fo...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Maharana Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harvadan Manharrai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj226; (1972)GLR522
ORDER1. This civil Revision Application raises a question of jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain Revision applications against interlocutory orders made in suits governed by Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The material facts of the case are as under.The plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No.245 of 1967 in the Civil Court at Bhuj for recovery of possession of the suit premises. It is not in dispute before me that the subject matter of the suit is governed by Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. The grounds on which the plaintiffs seek decree for possession are: (1) unlawful sub-letting of the suit premises by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 and (2) the irregularity in payment of rent and consequent breach of a term of tenancy. In course of the proceedings an application for amendment of plaint was made and it was granted. By the said amendment the plaintiffs added one more ground in support of their claim for possession. It is non-user of the suit premises for more...
Tag this Judgment!C. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Himatlal Bhagubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR481(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of a proceeding for reassessment of the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It was at all material times a partner in four firms through its manager and karta. The original assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61 was completed by the Income-tax Officer on 16th December, 1960. It seems that at that time only one of the four firms had been assessed, and, therefore, the share income of the four firms had been assessed, and, therefore, the share income of the assessee from that firm as determined by the Income-tax Officer assessing that firms was included in the assessment of the assessee. So far as other three firms were concerned, their assessments were pending and the Income-tax Officer assessing the assessee, therefore, accepted the share income of the assessee in those firms as declared in the return filed by the assessee and completed the assessment on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I Vs. Lakhdhir Lalji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR77(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. The assessee is a partnership firm and the assessment year is 1963-64, the relevant accounting year being S. Y. 2018. The Income-tax Officer passed the final order in assessment proceedings against the assessee on March 31, 1964; and he came to the conclusion that the assessee-firm, which deals in garlic, had not shown 1,383 bags of in the stock register as part of the stock at the end of the year of the account. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that these 1,383 bags of garlic were sold out by the assessee and the sale proceeds were not disclosed as part of the income of the assessee-firm for the accounting year. Under these circumstances, he added a sum of Rs. 58,000 as income which had been concealed by the assessee. He assessed the assessee-firm accordingly and he also issued a notice under section 274 for concealment of income. Against this assessment order the assessee appeared to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That officer came to the conclusion t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »