Gujarat Court March 1973 Judgments
Mirchumal Samandas and ors. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Guj174
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He does not hold a verified claim. He is. therefore, a non-claimant. He has been residing in a tenement situate in Varashiya Colony at Baroda which is a Government built colony. The tenement in his occupation was allotted to him. The Central Government some time back took decision to dispose of all the tenements in Varashiya Colony. The tenement in the occupation of the plaintiff was therefore also to be. disposed of. The plaintiff applied to the appropriate authority to transfer to him the tenement in his occupation. He relied upon Rule 42 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation habilitation) Rules, 1955 in support of his application. The appropriate officer rejected his application and -put to sale his tenement. The defendant No. 5 purchased it at the auction sale. The plaintiff, therefore filed, the present suit for a declaration that the auction sale of the tenement in his possession was ultra vires the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Kasambhai Nurbhai Vs. Jenatbibi D/O. Husainali Niyajali Saiyad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR603
B.K. Mehta, J.1. These two revisions arise out of the two interlocutory orders dated 22nd September, 1972 and 7th August, 1972, respectively, made by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Dholka in Civil Suit No. 87 of 1964 filed by one Jenatbibi Husainali against Shaikh Kasambhal Nurbhai for possession of five pieces of agricultural land situated within the revenue limits of Dholka town bearing S. Nos. 1482 to 1486 together with the superstructures and fixtures thereon. By the order of 22nd September, 1972, the learned Civil Judge refused to refer the question raised in issue No. 4, namely, whether the plaintiff proves that she became deemed purchaser on 1-4-1957, on the ground that the civil court has jurisdiction in the matter on the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in Musamia Imam Haider Box Razvi v. Rabari Govindbhai Ratnabhai and Ors. : [1969]1SCR785 , as it involves determination of a question about the past tenancy. By the order of 7th August, 1972, the learned Civil Judge rejected the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Lalabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: 1975CriLJ74; (1974)15GLR147
Mehta, J. xx xx xx27. The next day i.e. on 21st February, .197.1 the investigation proceeded further and during the course of this investigation the accused is said to have given a cross complaint as found at Ex. 102. One of the questions which is debated in this appeal is whether this cross complaint amounts to a statement recorded by the police during the course of the investigation of this case, and if so, whether it is admissible. xx xx xx33. Another controversial point which is involved in this appeal is as regards the arlmissibility of the cross complaint' found at Ex. 102. Here the contention of the defence is that ibis document is really speaking a statement of the accused recorded by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation of this case, and therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. On this point, the learned trial Judge, has held in favour of the prosecution, because, according to him, this document does not amount to a statement of the accused but ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Bhailal Gandhi Vs. Mahendra Naginlal Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR303
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner (tenant) against the opponent (landlord) against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 1964, filed by the petitioner against the opponent for determination of the standard rent in respect of the premises leased to him by the opponent. The learned trial Judge decided the matter on affidavits, The impugned order reads:Heard Mr. H.B. Desai and Mrs. J.H. Shah. Read the affidavits. Standard rent is fixed at Rs. 75/- per month. Parties to bear their costs.2. It was the petitioner's contention that rent agreed between the parties was excessive and it should be fixed at Rs. 35/- per month. It was the opponent's contention that he had let out the suit premises to one Navinchandra B. Desai on 27th May, 1954 at a concessional rate of Rs. 61/- per month. When that tenant vacated, he let out the suit premises to one Harihar Shukla on a monthly rent of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanbi Ramji Hirji Vs. Kanbi Ramji Gopal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Guj153; (1974)0GLR243
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed against the father of defendant No. 2 Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1950 in the Court of the District Judge at Bhuj to recover a sum of Rs. 10,558/-. On 31st March 1958 the suit was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. First Appeal No. 17 of 1958 was filed against that order in the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot. On 19th September, 1962 this High Court allowed it, set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the suit to the trial Court for decision on merits. On 9th August 1965 the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff filed against the defendant No. 2 an application for executing the decree in order to recover the total decretal amount of Rs. 21,875.85 p. including cost and interest. In execution of that decree he attached a piece of land which has been described in the judgment of the trial Court as the suit verandah. The defendant No. 1 resisted the attachment. He applied for...
Tag this Judgment!Luhar Bhimji Govind Vs. Mansukhlal Keshavlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Guj205
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition filed by the original judgment -debtor against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Junagadh in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5 of 1968 setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Una, below Ex. 41 in the Darkhast No. 170 of 1965(?) setting aside the auction sale under Order 21, Rule 92 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts giving rise to this Revision Petition briefly stated are as under. Opponents Nos. 2 (a) to 2 (d) are the trustees of the Swaminarayan Temple at Una. They obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,000 with running interest at 4 per cent per annum in regular civil suit No. 257 of 1964 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Una against the petitioner. They filed regular Darkhast No. 170 of 1965 for executing that decree and prayed for attachment and sale of the house of the judgment-debtor bearing S. Nos. 53 to 57 and its appurtenant house site bearing No. 51 situated i...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhdas Nandlal Panchamiya Vs. Mansukhlal Bhagwanji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR225
A.A. Dave, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision application briefly stated are under:The petitioner in the instant case is the original defendant while the opponents are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, therefore, I will refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendant. The suit property consisting of three rooms, Osri, kitchen and bathroom were let to the defendant for his residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. He had shifted to Bombay with his family for service about 22 years prior to the institution of the suit. As he did not reside in the premises and did not use it for the purpose of residence, continuously for a period of six months or more, the plaintiffs brought a suit to recover vacant possession thereof under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. The defendant by his written statement Ex. 8 contested the suit and denied various averments made in the plaint. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove non-user ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Mohmed and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: [1977]107ITR637(Guj)
Divan, J.1. Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1970 has been made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee, but at the time of making that reference, the Tribunal referred only one question and did not refer the particular question which the assessee wanted to be included in the reference. Thereafter, the assessee applied to this court by Income-tax Application No. 44 of 1971, and in pursuance of the directions issued by this court in that application, another question relating to the same assessee and the same assessment year and the same assessment proceedings has been referred by the Tribunal. Since both these references deal with the same matter and arise out of the same order of the Tribunal, we will dispose of both of them by this common judgment. 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1970, the question that has been referred to us i : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the furniture could have been taken as stock-in-trade of the business of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbhar Pragji Bechar Vs. Parekh Harilal Jagjivan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Guj84; (1974)0GLR133
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District judge. Bhavnagar allowing regular civil appeal No. 73 of 1967 and dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for possession with costs.2.The facts giving rise to this revision application briefly stated are as under:-The present petitioner used the opponents to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required the suit shop reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation as the adjoining shop which was in his possession was not sufficient for his business.3.The opponent-defendant was occupying the suit shop on the monthly rent of Rs.7/-. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, he wanted to start a medical store in the suit shop and therefore, he served the defendant-tenant with a notice terminating his tenancy and as he failed to hand over possession, the present suit was filed. The opponent-defendant by his written statement Ex.9 resisted the suit. He submitted that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I Vs. S.P. Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR440(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. These two references raise a short question as to the interpretation of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a registered firm which carries on business as a retail dealer in medicinal drugs and preparations. The assessee showed in its return for the assessment year 1964-65 total sales of Rs. 2,88,602 and gross profit of Rs. 16,400 which worked out at approximately five per cent of the total sales and net income of Rs. 14,738. Similarly, for the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee showed in the return submitted by it, total sales of Rs. 3,34,000 and gross profit of Rs. 26,595 which worked out at approximately 7.9 per cent. of the total sales and net income of Rs. 19,434. The Income-tax Officer assessing the assessee to income-tax for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 found that though the books of account were maintained by the assessee according to the mercantile method of accounting, it was not possible to accept ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »