Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]99ITR258(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee owning an immovable property situate in Ahmedabad. The property consists of a plot of land admeasuring 5,484 square yards on which there are twelve super-structures. The super-structure occupy nearly 40 per cent. of the said plot of land. The remaining 60 per cent. of the said plot of land is not built upon. During the relevant year of account corresponding to the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee made a gift to the extent of two-third interest in the said property in favour of her two relatives. The gift was effected by a registered deed which was executed on December 2, 1967, and the value of the entire property which was the subject-matter of the gift was therein put at Rs. 2,17,000. In due course, the petitioner furnished to the Gift-tax Officer having jurisdiction in the matter a return in the prescribed form in which the taxable gift was valued at Rs. 1,34,667. This figure was arrived at by computing the value of the two-third in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]99ITR257(Guj)
P. D. DESAI J. - The petitioner is an assessee owning an immovable property situate in Ahmedabad. The property consists of a plot of land admeasuring 5,484 square yards on which there are twelve super-structures. The super-structure occupy nearly 40 per cent. of the said plot of land. The remaining 60 per cent. of the said plot of land is not built upon. During the relevant year of account corresponding to the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee made a gift to the extent of two-third interest in the said property in favour of her two relatives. The gift was effected by a registered deed which was executed on December 2, 1967, and the value of the entire property which was the subject-matter of the gift was therein put at Rs. 2,17,000. In due course, the petitioner furnished to the Gift-tax Officer having jurisdiction in the matter a return in the prescribed form in which the taxable gift was valued at Rs. 1,34,667. This figure was arrived at by computing the value of the two-third in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj163; (1975)0GLR71
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner-landlord under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1969, dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the petitioner-landlady's suit for eviction which was claimed on account of non-payment of arrears of rent and education cess for a period aver six months. By suit notice, Ex. 23, demand of arrears of rent for the period between 10-5-1967' and 10-5-196,8 was made. That was the rent which could be claimed as found by the two Courts below. She was not entitled to rent up to 27-5-1968 on the date of the notice as it was broken portion of the month. It was a monthly tenancy and she was entitled to get rent at the, end of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1976Guj13; (1975)1GLR411
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 applied on 4th November, 1972, to the District Magistrate, Amreli for a no-objection certificate under the Bombay Cinema Rules. 1954 in order to enable them to construct a permanent cinema theatre on plots Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of S. No. 2770, 2771 and 2772 of Amreli town. Public notice of that application was issued by the District Magistrate. The petitioner runs a Students' Home on neighbouring plots Nos. 11, 12 and 13. It houses about 60 to 70 students. He, therefore, objected to this proposal and lodged written objections with the District Magistrate on 29th November, 1972. The distance between the proposed site for the cinema theatre and the Students' Home is about 20 feet. In fact only 20 ft wide road runs between them. The petitioner was not heard in the matter. On 10th April, 1973, the District Magistrate granted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 the no objection Certificate. Fifty four students also objected to this proposal. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj109
1. The facts leading to this appeal briefly stated are as under:The present respondent filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge at Limbdi alleging that they were the owners of a house consisting of two rooms facing east having continuous back wall on the west in Ambali Sheri locality at Limbdi. On the west of this wall, was a naveli or narrow lane 218'- 8' long and 3'-6' broad. On the other side of the Naveli was the back wall of the defendant's house. According to the plaintiffs they had one window measuring 2'x2' in the back wall of their house through which a person could go in the navel and they had two ventilators in each of the two rooms. According to them the two ventilators in the southern room had been placed two to three years ago whereas the two ventilators in the northern room and the window referred to above existed for a number of years. The plaintiffs claimed a right to get light and air through these apertures and they claimed a right of way to enter the nav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR256
C.V. Rane, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as an Accountant by deceased defendant No. 1 Chhotabhai Patel on a monthly salary of Rs. 150/- on 17th July 1959. Deceased Chhotabhai was the manager of three other firms who were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Suit No. 41 of 1965 filed by the plaintiff-appellant in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. He was also appointed as an Accountant in defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 firms, each of whom paid salary separately to the plaintiff. The second defendant was paying him a salary of Rs. 100/- per month. Each of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 Was paying him Rs. 75/- per month. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant who was also managing the affairs of the remaining three defendants, terminated h is services on 7th August 1964 without assigning any reasons or holding any inquiry. The above order of the defendants was in contravention of the provisions of Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1975CriLJ983; (1975)GLR353
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The elite amongst the world of pilferers and their associate will be as keenly interested aa the academician in the question placed in th centre of the perspective which does not appear to have been pointedly raised very often so far. Is it essential in order to establish an offence under Section 414 of the Indian. Penal Code to show that the property in relation to which the culprit rendered voluntary assistance in the matter of concealing or disposing or making away was in fact proved to be stolen property What requires to be placed in focus is the crucial difference in the wording of these two sections which might make a world pf difference. The aspect which I have in mind is the one stemming from the circumstance that Section 411 relating to dishonest receiving of stolen property in express terms makes it essential for the prosecution to establish that the property in question must be 'stolen property' (see the opening part of Section 411). If in -juxtaposition w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj142
Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal by the owner and insurer of a truck bearing registration No. GTB-5043. who were held liable for the disengages in sum of Rupees 30,000 under the Fatal Accidents Claims Act by the Tribunal of Baroda, which passed the award of compensation on July 23, 1969 in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, being, respectively widow and daughter of the deceased Mangaldar, Vanmalidas, whose life came to an abrupt end on April 14, 1968 as a result of the head-on collision between the aforesaid truck and the truck bearing registration No. GTG-244, in which, the deceased was travelling, as it belonged to his son-respondent No. 1 herein. The Tribunal found the driver of the truck No. GTB-5043 rash and negligent in driving his vehicle as he tried to overtake near a curve adjoining to Kumetha bus stand, a State Transport bus which was going from Pavagadh to Baroda and while doing so, it collided head-on with the truck No. GTG-244, which was coming from the opposite direction on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1974)15GLR736
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar appears to hold the view that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for an owner of an oil mill who sells adulterated oil in packed tins and pleads guilty to it to enter the gates of a jail. This view has been taken by the learned Magistrate notwithstanding the fact that barely three months back the same mill-owner was charged for a similar offence under the relevant section of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to as the 'P.F.A. Act' hereafter) to which he pleaded guilty and had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 180/-. In the background of these facts a notice was issued by the Court in exercise of powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to opponents accused Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause why the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/ - should not enhanced.2. On July 29, 1970 at about 10-00 a.m. Saiyed Mohmad Allarakh, Food Inspector of Bhavnagar Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR174
M.U. Shah, J.1. The Petitioner herein is the original plaintiff who had filed Civil Suit No. 1521 of 1957 in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. The suit was filed on 31-8-1967. It was a suit for compensation and damages for non delivery of the suit consignment of 20 drums of Silicate Soda booked from Bombay Dadar to Kankaria under Invoice No. 358, Railway Receipt No. 42562 dated 17-3-1967. The suit was instituted after giving requisite notices to the Railway Administration opponent herein under Section 78 B of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the institution of the suit, the said consignment appeared to have reached its destination on or about 28-9-1967. Thereupon, the defendant Railway's Agent, approached the petitioner-plaintiff to take delivery of the said consignment. The plaintiff informed the said Agent that as the said consignment had reached destination after a long time and as the consignment remained exposed to heat, sun,...
Tag this Judgment!