Gujarat Court August 1972 Judgments
Shamjibhai Dhanjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR237
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original accused who has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 66-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), by the City Magistrate, 2nd Court, Ahmedabad, in Summary Case No. 879 of 1970, and sentenced to suffer six months, rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. He is convicted of the said offence for possession of 1,500 grams of opium without pass or permit.2. This appeal came up for hearing before our learned Brother B. K. Mehta, J. It was urged before him on behalf of the appellant (original accused) that the evidence led by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the fact that the substance found in possession of the appellant, even if the prosecution evidence is believed, was 'opium' within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Act. It was the possession of opium falling...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat-ii Vs. Nirmal Chandulal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1972
Reported in: [1977]106ITR630(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. This reference under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, has been made at the instance of the controller of Estate Duty and the question which has been referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was disposition of property in favour of the relatives of the deceased within the meaning of Section 27(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to the extent of the difference between the value of the share of the deceased and the value of the property received by the deceased ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference may shortly be stated. We are concerned in this case with the estate of Shri Vadilal Chhaganlal. Prior to December 5, 1959, Vadilal Chhaganlal and his son, Chandulal Vadilal, were members of a joint Hindu undivided family. On December 5, 1959, these two members of the joint family executed a document which they called 'vahchani patrak' (document of partition) and this document has been referred on the record by some of the a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Mahant Ranchhoddas Guru Atmaramdasji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj115; (1973)GLR715
1. The State of Gujarat has filed this appeal under the following circumstances.2. There is a temple situate in Hanuman Pole in Wadi area of Baroda city. One Atmaramdasji was of that temple until he died on 4th October, 1947. He belonged to Ramanandi sect. He was a Nisangi (bachelor). According to the plaintiff, he has been the disciple or Shishya of the late Atmaramdasji who initiated him as a Shishya on 19th December, 1946. According to him, though he was initiated as a Shishya on 19th December, 1946 he was declared as a Shishya by Atmaramdasji on 23rd April, 1947, in the presence of Sadhus, Mahants and other disciples of the sect. He also underwent all ceremonies which were required for becoming a Shishya. He had performed the obsequial ceremonies of Atmaramdasji upon the latter's death and had lit the funeral pyre of the deceased. He, therefore, in his capacity as the Shishya of Atmaramdasji claims to be his lawful heir.3. On 9th October, 1947 one Sevadas Keshavdas and Maganlal Jag...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujrat I Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemica ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR170(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference arises out of assessments to income-tax made on the assessee for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the relevant account years being the years ending 30th June, 1959, and 30th June, 1960. The assessee is a limited company incorporated on 11th JUne, 1956. It was floated by one Nanji Kalidas mehta and the members of his family, On 24th November, 1955, prior ot the incorporation of the assessee, a mining lease was granted by the Goverment of Saurashtra to Nanji Kalidas Mehta for quarring limestone form certain areas of land. This mining leases was obtained by Nanji Kalidas because he intended to set up a cement manufacturing plant and limesone is an essential raw material in the manufacture of cement. Nanji Kalidas Mehta, thereafter, obtained form the Goverment of India on 16th December, 1955, a licence to establish a cement manufacturing plant in the name of 'Saurashtra *cement Works ltd.' The assessee was in the meantime incorporated on 11th June, ...
Tag this Judgment!Harivadan Kanaiyalal Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1866; (1973)GLR515
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioner Harivadan Kanaiyalal has been convicted by the learned City Magistrate, 11th Court, Ahmedabad for having committed an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days.2. Few relevant facts may be noticed. The petitioner is a registered owner of motor vehicle viz. scooter No. GJA 9418 and the vehicle came to be registered in his name somewhere on 27th February 1958. Tax payable in respect of the said vehicle by the person liable to pay the same commencing from 1st April, 1967 was not paid and a complaint was filed by one Mr. H. B. Rami, Motor Vehicle Inspector and taxation authority on 13th July, 1970 alleging that the petitioner who is a registered owner of the said vehicle has not paid the tax due and payable in respect of the said vehicle for the period 1st April, 1967 to 30th September, 1967. The allegation that the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Chhaganlal Mavji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1874; (1973)GLR495
B.J. Divan, J.1. The appellant herein is the State of Gujarat and it has appealed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manavadar, in Criminal Case No. 982/1972 of his Court. The charge against the accused was that he had failed to provide proper safe-guard against moving parts of a machinery in his factory as required by Section 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Factories Act, 1948 and bad thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.2. The prosecution case was that the accused was the Manager of M/s. Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Ltd., Manava-dar, which was running a factory for the extraction of oil from oil cake, which is a bye-product of oil-expeller industry. This was a factory as defined by Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. 1948 and that fact is not in dispute. The case of the prosecution was that for dealing with the raw material viz., Oil cake, there is a sifter which is referred to on the record as '...
Tag this Judgment!Malavia Brothers and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR371(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference arises out of an order of penalty passed against the assessee under section 221, sub-section (1), read with section 218 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in Rajkot. Since the assessee had been previously assessed by way of regular assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 210, sub-section (1), requiring the assessee to pay to the credit of the Central Government a sum of Rs. 17,113 by way of advance tax for the financial year 1965-66. The notice of demand issued in pursuance of the order specified the instalments in which the advance on 29th May, 1965. The assessee, however failed to pay any of the instalments specified in the notice of demand and the Income-tax Officer, therefore, issued a notice dated 4th May, 1966, called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should be imposed upon it for default in payment of the instalments under section 221...
Tag this Judgment!Baldevji Krishnaji Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1523; (1973)GLR153
B.J. Divan, J.1. The appellant herein is the original accused in Criminal Case No. 271 of 1970 in the Court of the learned City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad. The accused was prosecuted in respect of alleged adulteration of cow's milk which was being sold at his shop and he was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to R. I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default R. I. for 9 months.2. The facts of the prosecution case are that at about 6-45 p. m. on July 15, 1970, the Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation went to the shop of the accused at Madhupura. The accused held the licence to deal in milk and at the time when the Food Inspector, Sanatkumar, went to the shop, sale of milk was going on. He purchased 700 mis. of cow's milk from the accused and paid the price of 84 paise as demanded by the accused. Then he informed the accused t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanuben and ors. Vs. Zaverbhai Kalidas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj194; (1973)0GLR527
1. This appeal has been filed by the original defendants under the following circumstance 2. The plaintiff, the defendants No. 2 and the defendants No. 3 are the sons of the one Kalidas. The defendants No. 4 is the widow of Nanabhai, the deceased son of Kalidas. The defendants No. 1 is the widow of Kalidas. The document Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are the daughter of Kalidas. The plaintiff filled Regular Civil Suit No. 599 of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Surat for partition of joint family properties and for separate possession of his share.3. The defendants raised no dispute as to the plaintiff share in the joint family properties. There is also no dispute that the properties in which the plaintiff has been claming a share are joint family properties. The defendants raised only two small contention against the plaintiff claim. They claimed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the joint family estate on the ground that they had spent the amount for obsequial ceremonies of Kalida...
Tag this Judgment!V. J. Patel and P. J. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR353(Guj)
BHAGWATI C.J. - These two reference arise out of assessments to income-tax made on the assessee for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66 for which the relevant accounting years were the financial years ending on 31st March, 1960, to 31st march, 1965. The assessee in each reference is a Hindu undivided family. One Vidyasagar is the karta of the Hindu undivided family in Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1970. Vidysagar and Prafulkumar are the sons of one Jethbhai. Jethabhai had four sons, namely, Kantidev, Arvindkumar, Vidyasagar and Prafulkumar and they constituted a Hindu undivided family. This Hindu undivided family was disrupted by partition on 27th September, 1948, and the business, which was till then being carried on but it as joint family business, was converted into partnership business with Jethbhai and his four sons as partners. The partnership of Jethabhai and his four sons carried on the business but it ran into heavy losses and a large amount had to be borrowed by it from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »