Gujarat Court June 1973 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.
Maniben Chhotubhai and ors. Vs. Kacharabhai Bhulabhi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR209
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Executing Court in Darkhast No. 367 of 1970, over-ruling the objections raised by the present appellants regarding the executability of the 'decree against them and issue of a warrant for possession under Order 21, Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code against them, which order has been Confirmed by the learned District Judge, Surat, in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1971.2. Short facts leading rise to this appeal are as under:Respondent decree-holder filed Civil Suit No. 1499 of 1966 against one Chotubhai Kunverbhai Rathod (since deceased) on 24-11-1966 for recovery of possession of the leased premises and for the arrears of rent, etc., on the ground that Chhotubhai (tenant) whose contractual tenancy was determined, was a ten-ant-in-arrears for a period over six months and the landlord required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal face and occupation. In that suit, decree on the basis of consent term...
Shah Purshottamdas Ghelabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR443(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the assessee, which purports to be a partnership firm carrying on business in cotton textiles, relates to assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62. The assessee-firm was initially registered for the purpose of assessment to income-tax under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in assessment year 1057-58 and the registration was thereafter renewed from year to year up to assessment year 1961-62. The registration was, however, cancelled subsequently by the Income-tax Officer under rule 6-B of the Income-tax Rules, 1922, principally on the ground that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, two of the partners of the firm who were coparceners of a Hindu undivided family could not have validity entered into partnership family and that the firm was, therefore, not lawfully constituted. On appeal, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner upheld the said decision but came to the conclusion that where a partnership was illegal or n...
Firm Shah Kaushik Kumar Ratilal Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1973
Reported in: (1973)1GLR960
Divan, J.1. In all these Special Civil Applications the common questions are the challenge to the provisions of certain sections of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, (Act No. 74 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the two notifications. (1) dated 24th December 1964 and(2) dated 16th March 1967 issued under the provisions of Section 18, sub-section (3) of the said Act. All the petitioners, except the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.1080 of 1969, are dealers in cotton seeds. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No1080 of 1969 is the Association called the Palej Cotton-seed Buyers and Sellers Association. The narration of facts in Special Civil Application No. 2 of 1968 will be sufficient o bring out the controversy between the petitioners in each of these Special Civil Applications and the respondents. The Forward Market Commission is respondent No.2 in these Special Civil Applications and the Union of India is respondent No. 1 in each these Sp...
Bhagwandas Narayandas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR194(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. As per authorisation issued by the respondent No. 1, who is Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the respondent No. 3, V.C. Shah, who is an Income-tax Officer and his party proceeded to the village, Nani Daman, and began the search of the business as well as residential premises of the petitioner, Bhagwandas Narayandas, on 10th July, 1969. While the search was in progress, there was some commotion created by some local people with the result that the search remained incomplete and was subsequently completed on 26th August, 1969. Certain articles including case of Rs. 59,000 and some fixed deposit receipts as well as ornaments were seized under a panchnama. Thereafter, on 29th August, 1969, a notice contemplated by rule 112A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), was issued allowing the petitioner an opportunity to explain the nature of the possessio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›