Gujarat Court June 1974 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.
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Kumbhnath Co-op ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR448
A.A. Dave, J.1. Both these appeals involve a common question about the interpretation of Section 13(4) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (Act No. 22/55) hereinafter referred to as the Act, and Rule 9 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955.2. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 5th Court, Ahmedabad declaring that the notice, dated 12-1-1967 issued by the town development officer of the defendant-Corporation and his order, dated 27-1-1967 to demolish the structure raised in the respective survey numbers by the respondent-plaintiff are illegal and unauthorised and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendant-Corporation from executing the said order of demolition of the structures in question pursuant thereto.3. In order to appreciate the question of law involved in these appeals, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in details. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs in the above two suits challenged the ...
Deepak Industries Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC183(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal has referred to us in this reference the following three questions for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and for the grant of set-off, draw-back or refund under rule 42 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, de-oiled cakes and oil-cakes are different commercial commodities and there is no resale of oil-cakes, when after extracting oil therefrom, the resultant de-oiled cakes are sold by the applicant (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in holding that bardans cannot be deemed to have been sold along with the de-oiled cakes packed therein under section 15A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the purpose of granting set-off, draw-back or refund under rule 43 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, in respect of the tax paid on the purchases of oil-cakes (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appl...
Patel Chunibhai Dhanjibhai Vs. Patil Vallabhbhai Ambalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR481
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the landlords filed the present suit against the defendant-tenant for recovery of possession of suit premises. An open piece of land was let out by the plaintiffs to the, defendant originally on an annual rent of Rs. 91/-. The plaintiffs alleged four grounds of eviction against the defendant. They were as follows:(1) The defendant had been in arrears of rent for more than four years;(2) The plaintiffs required the suit land for putting up a construction thereon;(3) The defendant had been causing nuisance and annoyance to neighbouring occupiers; and(4) The defendant had been causing waste in the suit premises.2. The learned trial Judge negatived all the grounds of eviction and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court. The District Court granted an amendment to the plaint and a fresh ground for recovery of possession was inserted. The District Court, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial court and remande...
In Re: New Asarwa Manufacturing Company Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas151(Guj); (1975)0GLR553
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This is a petition under section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956, for confirming alterations of the memorandum of the company annexed to the petition at annexure 'B'. The petitioner-company was registered under the Companies Act No. VI of 1882 on October 6, 1913, under the name of 'Harivallabhadas Mulchand Mills Co. Ltd.' as a company limited by shares. The name of the original company was changed to 'New Asarwa .' from February 15, 1961, and a fresh certificate of incorporation dated the 15th February, 1961, was issued by the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 35,00,000 divided into 3,164 ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000 each, 2,240 4 1/2% redeemable cumulative 1st preference shares of RS. 100 each, 560 second 4 1/2% redeemable cumulative 2nd preference shares of Rs. 100 each and 560 4 1/2% redeemable cumulative 3rd preference shares of RS. 100 each. All the shares are fully paid up. The objects of the petitioner-company are descri...
Manchharam Sobhrai and ors. Vs. Jamnadas Mulchand and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Guj47; (1975)GLR898
ORDER1. The plaintiffs who are the landlords filed against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the present suit for recovering possession of the suit premises which consist of a shop situate at Kodinar in the District of Amreli. The Plaintiffs alleged against the defendants three grounds of eviction. The first ground was that they require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation. Secondly they alleged that the defendant No. 1 was in arrears of rent for more than six months. Thirdly they alleged that the defendant No.1, their tenant had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to the defendant No. 2.2. The learned trial Judge negatived all the grounds of eviction alleged by the plaintiffs against the defendant and dismissed the suit on merits.3. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge negatived two of the three grounds of eviction alleged by the plaintiffs but upheld the plaintiff's contention that the defendant No. 1 had unlawfully sub-let t...
Thakker Popatlal Jadavji and anr. Vs. Thakker Durlabhji Dharamshl
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR888
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The landlord filed against the tenants the present application under Section 13A of the Bombay Rent Act for permission to construct an additional structure on the building let out to the tenants. The landlord alleged that he wants to construct one room and a kitchen on the terrace of the building which is in the possession of the tenants. The premises in possession of the 'tenants consist of an enclosed house in which there are two rooms, two kitchens, an Osri and other incidental accommodation.2. The learned Trial Judge, after having considered the merits of the case, granted the application made by the landlord and made in his favour the following order:The opponents are ordered to allow the applicant to construct the additional structure of a room and a kitchen on' the western portion of the suit premises and also to construct a stair case for going to this additional structure from the portion of land touching the southern wall of the suit premises within the deli ...
Duabhai Lalji Kalidas Vs. Ramniklal Somehand Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj213; (1975)0GLR824
ORDER1. The plaintiff-landlord filed the present suit for possession of the suit premises which consist of a room, an osri and a kitchen. They are situate in the City of Raikot and have been let out to the defendant-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. The plaintiff alleged against the defendant the following three grounds of eviction:(1) The defendant had been in arrears of rent for more than six months (2) The defendant had erected a permanent structure in the suit -premises and was, therefore, liable to be evicted. (3) The defendant had been causing nuisance and annoyance to the neighbouring occupiers by working a furnace or Bhatthi. 2. The defendant denied the Plaintiff's case and in his turn alleged that the notice to quit served upon him was invalid.3. The learned Trial Judge found that the notice served by the plaintiff upon the defendant was valid and legal. He next found that the defendant had been in arrears of rent for more than six months and was, therefore, liable to be e...
Scientific and Glass Laboratories Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC418(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question involved in this reference is whether glass 'ampules' are 'bottles' within the meaning of entry No. 6(vii) of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), or whether they are covered by the residuary entry No. 22 of Schedule E of the Act. 2. The facts which give rise to this question are that the petitioner is a partnership-firm duly registered as a dealer under the Act. Its business is to manufacture and to sell ampules. During the assessment for the financial years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, the Sales Tax Officer held that the empty ampules sold by the petitioner-firm were covered by entry No. 6(vii) of Schedule C of the Act. He, therefore, taxed the turnover accordingly. It is found that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax thereafter proposed to revise the assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer and issued notices to the petitioner-firm calling upon it to show cause why the ampules sold b...
Jagjivandas Mulchand Chokshi Vs. Soni Manilal Mohanlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR759
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant had been carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Bhagyodaya Engineering Company at Palanpur. The partnership firm business was commenced on 19th January, 1960. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent on 9th September, 1965. Though the partnership firm was dissolved by mutual consent the parties could not settle the accounts of partnership business. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for accounts. The defendant applied for time to file his Written Statement. Subsequently he filed the Written Statement and issues were raised. On 22nd January, 1970 some evidence was recorded by the Trial Court. On 18th June, 1970 the parties gave a joint purshis, Ex. 60 in which they stated that the dispute should be referred to the arbitration of two persons named therein. The Court made an order below Ex. 60 and referred the dispute to the arbitrators under Section 22 of the Arbitration Act. On 1st August 1970...
State of Gujarat Vs. Golden Metal Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC349(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. The Tribunal has posed the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 'motor tube value checknut' is covered by entry 42B of Schedule C or residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.' 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of values, value caps and grease nipples and spare parts of stoves and petromax. The said articles are manufactured from metal and are also used for replacement of the original unserviceable rubber values of the motor tubes by the assessee. The assessee made an application under section 52 for determining the rate of tax payable on the sales of 'motor tube value with checknut' which he sold. As the said component part value has been held to be covered by the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E and not by the specific entry 42B of Schedule C to the Act, the Tribunal has sought this reference. 3. The Tribunal has seen the value in question. In the original car the tube would have the rubber value ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »