Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1975CriLJ661; (1974)GLR875
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a citizen of India residing in the city of Ahmedabad. Me has filed this petition for a declaration 'that any notification issued either by respondent No. 1 or 2 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure announcing that a person committing breach of such order shall be liable to be shot at, is illegal and inoperative' and for an appropriate writ 'against the respondents restraining them and their agents from taking any action under the said notification.'2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under.3. On account of the disturbed conditions to the city of Ahmedabad the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an order on 27th January, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the curfew order1 as it is otherwise known). The material part of that order when translated into English reads as under.Whereas tense situation prevails in the area of the City of Ahmedabad under the jurisdictio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1974]96ITR672(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. This reference illustrates once again what a bewildering variety of questions arise for consideration under the income-tax law. The question which falls for determination in this reference is rather unusual, namely, whether drawings and patterns received by an assessee from a foreign company under a collaboration agreement can be said to be 'plant' on which depreciation is allowable under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is a very debatable question which is not easy of answer and though we have taken one view which appears to us more plausible, the other view is not altogether impossible. 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of elevators. The controversy in the present reference arises out of two agreement entered into by the assessee with foreign collaborators. The first is an agreement dated October 5, 1960, entered into by the assessee with Alfred Wiseman & Co. Ltd., Birmingham, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1089
A.A. Dave, J.1. to 8. x x x x x x x.9. Mr. Bhatt next urged that if blood test rules are not properly followed, no presumption would be raised. He submitted that there is no evidence to show that the Medical Officer who extracted blood had used a sterilised syringe or that he had not applied alcohol or cleaned with sterilised water the skin of the accused before extracting blood. He urged that unless the Medical Officer categorically stated that he had followed all the Rules scrupulously, no presumption could be made that he in fact had followed the rules. He therefore, urged that these rules being mandatory, if they were not followed, no legal presumption could be made under Section 66(2) of the Act. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhatt referred to the case of Vrajlal Damodar v. State of Gujarat (1971) 12 Guj LR 68 wherein at page 69 it was observed as under:It is, however, essential for the prosecution to prove two requirements prescribed by Rule 4(1) viz., that no alcohol was all...
Tag this Judgment!