Gujarat Court April 1973 Judgments
Vasanji Kevalbhai and ors. Vs. Dahiben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Guj25; (1974)GLR780
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The defendants-tenants in this appeal challenge the eviction decree which has been passed by the learned Single judge in favour of the plaintiff purchasers of the three suit lands. There were other, combanion matters which have not come no in appeal and in this appeal we are concerned only with the purchasers' suit for eviction, of the defendants tenants. The suit lands, originally bore S. Nos. 45 and 46 which are now divided into new S. No. 16 and, new S. Nos. 47 and 50 respectively of village Dumbhal in Chrisai Taluka, Surat District and there is no dispute that they were situated within the distance of two miles of the limits of surat Borough Municipality as on December 28, 1948, when the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', or the 1948 Act' came into force. As far as old S.No.45 was concerned, there was a mortgage with a lease back on march 17, 1880 and that original owner Mulla Alibhai Mulla Habibulla by the sale d...
Tag this Judgment!Vilco Laboratories Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1973
Reported in: 1975CriLJ965
C.V. Rane, J.(1 to 4) x x x x5. Section 23 of the Act relates to the procedure to be followed by the Inspectors while taking samples of drugs for th,e purpose of being forwarded to the Government Analyst. Sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Act .which is relevant for our purposes, inter alia provides that; one of the portions of the sample is to be sent to the Government Analyst for test or. analysis, the second portion is to be produced before the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted and the third portion is to be sent to the person concerned. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act provides 'The Government Analyst to whom a sample of any drug or cosmetic has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-section (41 of Section 23. shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form.' According to Sub-section (2) of Section 25,-the Inspector on receipt, thereof has to deliver one copy of the report to the person from who...
Tag this Judgment!Jivatben Shamuben W/Do. Kachraji Jivaji Vs. the Manager, the Saraspur ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR451
A.A. Dave, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dismissing the application given by one Jivatben, widow of Kachraji Jivaji, claiming Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for the personal injury received by the said Kachraji Jivaji in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that deceased Kachraji Jivaji was a workman employed by respondent No. 1-the Saraspur Mills Co-operative Supply Society Limited, Ahmedabad and Saraspur Mills Co. Limited-respondent No. 2, respectively. He was working in the canteen run by respondent No. 1 at the relevant time. The accident took place while the said Kachraji was cleaning the gutter. He became unconscious as a result of inhaling poisonous gas and was immediately removed to the Civil hospital, Ahmedabad. He was admitted as an indoor patient and was discharged on 4-8-1962 though not completely cured. Ultimately, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jintan Clinical thermometer Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1973
Reported in: (1974)0GLR616; (1975)ILLJ169Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-company has raised two questions in this petition : (1) Whether the manufacture of clinical thermometer falls under the entry of 'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products' specified in Schedule I of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', when read with Item (18) of Explanation (a) 'mathematical and scientific instruments', and (2) Whether the decision of the Central Government under S. 19A resolving a doubt in this connection only on November 7, 1968, could be implemented retrospectively prior to the date of the decision from August 1, 1965, as intimated by the authorities : The petitioner-company's factory was set up on August 1, 1962, with Japanese collaboration and commercial production started in 1965. By a letter of respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, date September 4, 1965 the petitioner was asked to implement the Act and the Scheme. Thereafter, the company took up the m...
Tag this Judgment!Nanavati Jayantilal Chunilal Vs. Shah Ashabhai Mahijibhai P.A.H. for S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR675
A.A. Dave, J.1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda dismissing Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1967 filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baroda in Civil Suit No. 28 Of 1965.2. The facts giving rise to this revision application briefly stated are that the present petitioner Nanavati Jayantilal Chunilal is the original defendant while the opponent Shah Ashabhai Mahijibhai who is the holder of general power of attorney of Shah Rajnikant Ashalal, is the original plaintiff. I will, therefore, refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience in this revision application.3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the house situated in Daji Shukla Khadki. Two rooms on the first floor and a room on the second floor were given on rent to the defendant from 26-9-1944 for which a rent n...
Tag this Judgment!Phonix Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shushilaben Shantilal Mehta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1973
Reported in: 1974ACJ326; AIR1974Guj157; (1974)15GLR231
1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner (original opponent No. 3)- Insurer -against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dismissing the application, Ex. 74, filed by the petitioner claiming that it being made a party to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Application No. 57 of 1967 by opponent No. I (injured) and others, it has a right to cross-examine the witnesses examined not only on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but on all grounds on the merits as it could be done by an assured (insured) Opponent No. 1 in the petition is an injured person, opponent No. 2 is her husband. Opponent No. 3 is her son. Opponent No. 4 is the daughter and opponent No. 5 is the scooter-driver who was driving the scooter, which was responsible for causing injury to the injured, and opponent No. 6 is the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulahed Moulvi Abdulsamad and ors. Vs. Gulamahmed Gulamnabi Bardoliw ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Guj1
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant Judge, Surat dismissing regular civil appeal No. 5 of 1967 with costs.2. The petitioners in the instant case -are the original plaintiffs while the opponents are the original defendants. I will, therefore, refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience so far as this revision application is concerned.3. The facts giving rise to this revision application briefly stated are that the plaintiffs own open land enclosed by a compound wall admeasuring 969 sq. yds. bearing Nondh No. 2033 in ward No, 12 at Surat, The suit property was originally let out to me Gulamnabi Vajirbhal Bardoliwal.a. who was the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and 12 and the husband of defendant No, 11. at the monthly rent of Rs.40. A rent note was executed on behalf of Gulamnabi by defendant No. 3. The suit land was taken on rent for the purpose of manufacturing cotton chords or cotto...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Phirozsha Pestanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR185(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference raises a short question of construction of section 21, sub-section (1), of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference arises out of assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, corresponding valuation dates being March 31, 1962, and March 31, 1963. The assessee was, at all material times, the sole executor and trustee under the will of one Pestanji Faramji Contractor (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The deceased died on August 16, 1941, having duly made and published his last will dated June 4, 1941. We are concerned with only three clauses of the will and we may, therefore, confine our attention to them. The deceased directed under clause 13 of the will that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 joint stock companies or Government securities and the net income from such investments should be paid to Smt. Alamay, wife of his son, Manekshah, 'for the benefit of Manekshah till he survives' and Manekshah should be entitled to utilize the amount of such income 'according ...
Tag this Judgment!Neon Motor Stores and ors. Vs. Alliance Stores Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Guj168; (1974)0GLR272
1. The petitioners in the instant case are the original defendants while the respondents are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience therefore, I will refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendants.2. The facts giving rise to this revision application briefly stated are as under:One Deepakkumar Navnitlal is the owner of a building known as Deepak Chambers situated at Ahmedabad. The part of the said building as shown in the plaint Ex. 36 as given on lease to Alliance Stores Trading Company Ltd., who is the present plaintiff before us. Out of the premises which were let to it, the plaintiff- Company sub-let the shop bearing M. C. No. 679-14-15-2 to Neon Motor Stores on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- per month. 'The rest of the premises shown in the map is in the occupation of the plaintiffs. It transpires that one Navnitlal Ranchhodlal as the guardian of minor Deepakumar had filed Civil Suit No. 2659 of 1958 against the present plaintiff and Neon Motor Stores and four others...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Ochhavlal Panalal Kothari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR414(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. In this reference made at tahe instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us by the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the initiation of penalty was valid ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee, the respondent herein, is a registered firm. The relevant assessment year was 1956-57 and the assessee-firm filed its return voluntarily for the assessment year 1956-57 on March 31, 1958, and the return showed a total income of Rs. 57,994. On June 30, 1960, the Income-tax Officer passed the assessment order holding the total income of the assessee-firm in the assessment year 1956-57 to be Rs. 70,369. At the time of passing the assessment order the Income-tax Officer directed that notice under section 28 for late submission of return under section 22(1) should also be issued. In the penalty proceedings, the Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 2,000 under section 28(1)(a) of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›