Gujarat Court July 1972 Judgments
V.B Shukla, Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Prakas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ124; (1973)GLR381
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, against the order of acquittal passed by the City Magistrate. 8th Court, Ahmedabad, in case No. 177 of 1975 of his file.2. The respondent No. 1 Prakash Vishandas was prosecuted for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for adulterating milk with water. On 24th April. 1970 the appellant complainant Purchased some sample milk from the shop of the first respondent intimating him that the said sample milk was purchased for analysis by public Analyst. The sample was taken and sealed in the presence of Panches under regular Panchanama and thereafter on analysis it was found that it contained 5.2% solids non-fat and 4% of fat. It is an admitted Position that this was the sample of cows milk. Now according to rule 5 framed under the Act the cow milk should contain not less than 3.5% of milk fat and not l...
Tag this Judgment!Asmal Bagas Abharam Vs. Rai Mahijibhai Parbhatsing and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj19; (1973)1GLR600
1. The plaintiffs against the defendant Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjan for redemption of mortgage of the suit property. - The suit property consists of two parcels of land carved out of S. No. 260 of village Dhamanja in Baroda District. The plaintiffs mortgaged the suit land to the defendant on 4th May 1954 for a sum of Rs. 2,925/- under a registered document. It is the plaintiff's allegation that it is a mortgage by conditional sale.2. In defence the defendant contended that the transaction was an outright sale and not a mortgage by conditional sale. He also contended that on payment of six times the assessment in respect of the suit land he had become occupant thereof.3. The trial Court held that the transaction was a mortgage by conditional sale, that the plaintiff No. 2 alone was entitled to redeem the mortgage and that the defendant had not become an absolute owner of the suit land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!Mandal Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. K ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR332(Guj)
BHAGWATI C.J. - The short question of law that arises in these references is :'Whether an appeal lies against an order of rectification made by the Income-tax Officer under section 35, sub-section (1), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'It has always been assumed by those concerned with this rather complex piece of legislation that no appeal lies against such an order of rectification. The question is, whether this assumption is correct. It is a pure question of law and we do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with any statement of facts. It would be enough to formulate the question and straightway embark upon a discussion of it. When an assessment is made by the Income-tax Officer under section 23 and thereafter, on discovering a mistake apparent from the record of the assessment, the Income-tax Officer makes an order of rectification under section 35, sub-section (1), is the order of rectification appealable under section 30, sub-section (1) ?The right of appeal against...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmiram Ratanji and anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, O.N.G. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj103
1. This appeal is direceted against the Judgment and award of the learned District Judge, Broach, awarding Rs. 190-40 as additional amount of compensation which was wrongly deducted as being the 1/3rd of the total amount of solatium of Rs. 571-20 Ps.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under-;-Land admeasuring 22 Gunthas of S, No. 11/1 and 39 Gunthas, and 8 visa of S. No. 11/2 belonging to the present appellants situated in the village kalam, Mahal Hanost. District Broach was acquired for the Drilling Site No. 30. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60per Guntha. Out of the total amount of compensation which included the amount of solatium at the rate of 15% the Special Land Acquisition Officer deducted 1/3rd of the total amount of compensation on account of the premium chargeable by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. In Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 3/69 which was registere...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidya Trambaklal Purshottam (L.R. and Heir of Deed. Purshottam Dungar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR194
A.D. Desai, J.1. This second appeal comes before us for final decision on the reference made by our brother D. A. Desai. J. Shortly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff are neighbours and their houses are adjoining. The suit house of the defendant is situated in the east of that of the plaintiff. Till the filing of the suit, the house of the defendant had a ground floor only. There is a wall dividing the two houses. The total length of the wall is 22 feet. The breadth of the wall is 9 inches. There is no dispute between the parties that the common wall having the length of 19 feet on the ground floor is a joint wall. The first 4 feet of the wall is admittedly of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had constructed a first floor and in so doing he increased the height of this common wall. It was the case of the plaintiff that this wall on the first floor which was erected on the common wall was his exclusive property. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyaben Vs. Jagdishchandra Nandshankar Bhatt and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj23; (1973)GLR328
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, City Civil Court. 7th Court, Ahmedabad declaring that the deceased Nandshanker Vishvanath Bhatt had left the suit immovable property viz. Shanker Niwas as the Joint Hindu family property in his hands and that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. I to 5 were each entitled to claim 1/18 share from out of 1/3 share of the deceased in the aforesaid joint family property, and that over and above his 1/18 share, defendant No. I was also entitled to have remaining 2/3 shares in the suit immovable property as surviving coparcener on the death of the deceased.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:The present appellant Vidyaben is the widow of Nandshanker Vishvanath Bhatt. She was the second wife of the said. Nandshanker Bhatt and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are the two daughters born of that marriage. Defendant No. 1 is the son of Nandshanker Bhatt and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughter...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Natwarlal Tribhovandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR703(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. This reference raises a short but interesting question as to whether the income of the assesses derived from partnership business is earned income or unearned income. The assessee, who was assessed in the capacity of an individual, was a partner in two firms, namely, Messrs. Ramjibhai Hirjibhai & Sons and Messrs. Vishvakarma Construction Co. Both the firms carried on the business of construction work. For the assessment year 1962-63 (corresponding accounting year being S. Y. 2017, i.e., the period from 21st October, 1960 to 5th November, 1961), the assessee filed a return showing, inter alia, an income of Rs. 78,454 and Rs. 3,061 being his share respectively in the profits of the said two firms. The assessee claimed in the course of the assessment-proceedings that the income was 'earned income ' because during the relevant period he was actively engaged as a partner in the conduct of the business of the firms. The Income-tax Officer negatived the claim of the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Karimij Devdiwala and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj195; (1973)1GLR347
1. This appeal raises a very interesting question of law whether the by the farmed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, would be applicable to a person residing in an area which was subsequently included within in the municipal limits of the city of Ahmedabad.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:--The present appellants are the owners of land bearing survey number 260 situated with limits of Paldi village. They had constructed rooms, houses, garage workshop etc. and installed machinery thereon for oil mill, cloth printing works and other trades. The land bearing survey number 260 was not within the limits of the Corporation when the Act was enacted and came into force in the city of Ahmedabad. The said land was included within the city limits of 13-8-1958. The plaintiff had made certain construction viz. a chimney with platform and a boiler with a platform and the shed thereon, without giving an int...
Tag this Judgment!Pranlal Jayanand Thakar Vs. Vasudev Ramachandra Shelat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1972
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas203(Guj); (1973)0GLR363
1. That takes us to the question regarding the effect of the gift deed of Bai Ruxmani in favour of Vasudev Shelat. In this connection we have to consider the question from two different angles. Firstly, we have to consider as to what is the legal effect of the registered gift deed, exhibit 815, by which Bai Ruxmani purported to make a gift of the different shares enumerated therein in favour of her brother, Vasudev Shelat. Secondly, we have to consider in the light of the clauses of that gift deed as to what is the effect of share certificates and scripts pertaining to these shares mentioned in the gift deed having been handed over to Vasudev Shelat during the lift-time of Bai Ruxmani at or about the time when the registered gift deed, exhibit 815, was executed on March 6, 1948; and, lastly, we have to examine as to what is the legal effect of blank transfer forms having been handed over by Bai Ruxmani to Vasudev Shelat between March 6, 1948, when the registered gift deed was executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Virabala and ors. Vs. Shah Harichand Ratanchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj1; (1973)0GLR88
2. Mr. N. H. Bhatt, leaned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the question of ordinary residence is a question of fact and not a question of presumption. He conceded that the mere face that the minor children resided at village Vaghel on the date of the application by itself would not be sufficient for the Court to come to the conclusion that Vaghel village was the ordinary pace of residence of the minor children. The Court has to look to all relevant facts and circumstances and decide on the basis of them as to what is the place of ordinary residence of minor children. Mr. Bhatt urged that it was an admitted position that Virbala, the mother of the minor children, left her husband's home at Palanpur on 31st October, 1967,. Even according to the husband's own case,. even prior to that leaving her husband's home Virbala used to stay more often at her parents' place rather than at her husband's home with an animus desertendi, On the ground of desertion, the husband t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›