Gujarat Court August 1972 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.
Kantilal Ishwerlal Shah Vs. Dr. Mukundrai Keshavlal Parikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR227
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the original defendant (tenant) under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 316 of 1963. The appellate Bench passed a decree for eviction and allowed the appeal on the ground that the defendant-tenant has committed a breach of a term of the tenancy, viz. using particular spacemen for common passage by putting articles, etc. thereon, and for other purposes. Possession was sought on other grounds also. But both the Courts below found that those grounds were not established.2. The trial Court, in Civil Suit No. 2453 of 1960, against which the aforesaid appeal was filed, had also held that this breach of the tenancy was established, but according to it, the landlords cannot get a decree for eviction on that ground in the abs...
Amratlal Gurdial JaIn and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1278; (1973)GLR61
ORDERD.P. Desai, J.1. This application raises a question of construction of Sub-section (2A) of Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in respect of the powers of the High Court, if any. to order a person to whom a certificate under Article 134 has not been granted by the High Court, to be released on bail in order to enable him to move the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The applicants who were original accused Nos. 1 and 3. were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, at Broach of offences punishable under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act. 1962 and Section 8 read with Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. and were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment and fine. Their appeal to the Sessions Court against this order of conviction and sentence failed; and therefore, thev camp to this Court in revision. That was Criminal Revision Application No. 493 of 19...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Santosh Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR563(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference raises a very interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act'). The facts giving rise to the reference are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The assessee is a registered firm and for the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee was required to furnish its return of income on or before June 30, 1961, by virtue of the public notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 22, sub-section (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). The date for delivery of the return, namely, June 30, 1961, was not extended by the Income-tax Officer under the proviso to section 22, sub-section (1), and the assessee should have, therefore, filed its return of the income on or before that date. But the assessee failed to do so and filed its return of income as late as January 31, 1966. By that time the old Act was repealed and...
Shah Velji Nagji Vs. Hevkuberbai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj207; (1973)0GLR980
ORDER1. This is a revision petitioner filed by original defendants No. 2 under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kutch at Bhuj in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1966 below Ex. 161, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to examine one Girdharilal Bhaiya residing at Akola (Vidharbha) on commission.2. Petitioner is the father of present opponent No. 1. Opponents Nos. 2 and 3 are the legal representatives of one Talakshi who was original defendants No. 1 and had died. Opponents No. 4 is the original defendants No. 3.3. According to the petitioner, one Umarbai gifted the suit properties to present opponent No. 1 (plaintiff) by a deed, dated 14-4-1927 at Akola. It is alleged that deceased Talakshi Passed a deed of Karanama on 18-12-1929 in favour of the present petitioner (defendants No. 2) and in that deed there is a mention that the suti property was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›