Gujarat Court September 1975 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.
Bank of Baroda Ltd. (No. 2) Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas328(Guj); (1976)GLR443
P.D. Desai, J.1. On September, 18, 1975, I passed the following order in these proceedings : 'For the reasons to be recorded in my judgment which will follow, I direct Mr. P. P. Mistry (secretary of the transferee-company) or Mr. G. S. Rane (senior officer of the transferee-company) to execute instruments of transfer in respect of the shares of such members of the transferor-company, who have exercised the option to receive cash in lieu of entitlement to shares and debentures under clause 9(ii) but who have failed to duly execute transfer forms sent to them by the transferee-company in compliance with clause 9(iii) of the scheme of amalgamation as sanctioned, and the transferor-company is directed to treat such instruments of transfer as and when delivered to it, as having been duly executed on behalf of the concerned shareholders. The petitioner will pay the advocate's fees of the counsel of the Central Government.' 2. In order to appreciate the circumstances under which these directi...
Ramesh Nanu Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR350
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the original accused against the order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1975, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Ahmedabad, dated 10th April, 1975, in Criminal Case No. 1444 of 1974. He has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months further rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was admitted by the Sessions Court on 29-4-1975 and the impugned order has been passed on 20-8-1975. The order reads:Neither the appellant nor his advocate present. Mr. G.S. Bhatt, the learned additional public prosecutor for opponent No. 2 state present. Rest absent. Appeal dismissed. Bail to be cancel...
Raberi Karsan Cova and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1975
Reported in: 1977CriLJ107; (1976)1GLR316
S.H. Sheth, J. 1-3. x x x x x x x x x x x xMr. Mehta has argued that the complaint lodged by this witness Ex. 49 is not admissible in evidence because it is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Mehta, information of a cognizable offence was given much earlier to the police. He has invited our attention in that behalf to the deposition of Batuksing Bavansing, Police Station Officer in charge of Mehsana Taluka Police Station at the relevant time. He is P.W. 13. Ex. 29. His evidence discloses that he had received a telephonic message from Police Head Constable Prakash at about 1-25 P.M. informing him that a quarrel had taken place between Rabaris and the watchmen and that the Rabaris had run away after having assaulted the watchmen and that, therefore, the needful should be done. He did not record that message in the telephone register maintained by the Police Station. Therefore, we really do not have before us the exact message which was received on tele...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Bachubhai Nagindas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR551(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. Since both these matters arise out of one and the same case, We will dispose of both of them by this common judgment. In the income-tax reference the following question has been referred to us - 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the remuneration forgone by the assessee was not income liable to tax is erroneous in law.' 2. This question has been referred to us at the instance of the revenue. 3. Along with the question which has actually been referred to us, the revenue also waited the following two questions to be referred to us : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had explained the sources of Rs. 38,000 is based on no material on record and is perverse in law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reducing the income of the assessee from Rs. 58,000 to Rs. 10,200 ?' 4. At the t...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat-ii, Ahmeadabad Vs. M/S Damjibha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Guj)23
Mehta, J. - The relevant assessment year is 1964-65. The assessee is a firm which carried on business as Civil Engineering Contractors since many years prior to the relevant assessment year. For the assessment year 1964-65, it did not file return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. A notice under Section 139(2) was served on the assessee on September 16, 1964. In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return of income on January 22, 1965 showing a total income of Rs. 81,896/-. A revised return was also filed by the assessee-company on June 30, 1966 showing a reduced income of Rs. 33,392/- but the same was not entertained by the Income-tax Officer. We are not concerned with the question of the revised return in this reference. A show cause notice was issued upon the assessee to explain why penalty should not be levied. The assessee did file its written explanation to the show cause notice on December 15, 1969. The Income-tax Officer considered the various cont...
Shriram Harichand Gujaral Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR434
S.H. Sheth, J.1. In this appeal the learned single judge has referred to the Division Bench the following question:Whether the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 in so far as they stipulate that a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover should be sent separately, are mandatory or are directory.In order to answer the question which has been referred to the Division Bench it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. The accused was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for having sold to the complainant chilly powder adulterated with coal tar dye. The complainant-food inspector took from the accused the sample of chilly powder for analysis and divided it into three parts. As required by Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the prevention of the food adulteration Act, 1954 he delivered one part of the sample to the accused, sent another for analysis to the public analys...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Narottamdas K. Nawab
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR455(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this reference at the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the instalment of annuity deposit received by the karta of the assessee as nominee/ legal representative of the deceased depositor was liable to be assessed as income of the assessee ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessee herein is the heir and legal representative and nominee of one Subhadraben K. Nawab who was the original depositor of certain amounts under the Annuity Deposit Scheme set out in Chapter XXII-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subhadraben, the original depositor, had made a nomination in the regular form under the Scheme in favour of the assessee and by her will, she had bequeathed the right to receive the annual instalments in respect of the relevant annuity deposit certificates to the assessee. For the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1...
State of Gujarat Vs. Hasam Ali Shorat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR79
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The state has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence inflicted on the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 by the court of the Judicial Magistrate first class, at umbergaon under Section 135 of the customs Act in Criminal Case No. 204 of 1974 of his file.2. Short facts of the case are that on 29th August 1974 when customs officers of Bulsar were patrolling the sea, they sighted one vessel floating on sea at a distance of 4 to 5 miles away from the coast of village Umbergaon. The vessel resembled like an Arab Dhow from its construction and hence the custom authorities proceeded towards it. They gave the signal to the vessel to stop but instead of stopping the vessel tried to run away. The custom officers however, chased it and foiled its attempt to run away by intercepting it. The Custom Officers boarded the vessel and found that it was carrying about 98,800 Yards of foreign fabric valued at Rs. 22,17,233, one television set valued at Rs. 6000/- and two wooden drums o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Babubhai Mansukhbhai (Deceas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR417(Guj)
C.J. Divan, C.J. 1. In this reference, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the correct status of the assessee in respect of the properties inherited by him on the death of his father was as representing his Hindu undivided family or as an individual ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessment years under consideration are 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessee who seems to have died during the pendency of the proceedings was one Dr. Bahubhai Mansukhbhai. The assessee's father, Mansukhbhai, died intestate on October 8, 1963, leaving certain self-acquired properties. On the death of Mansukhbhai these self-acquired properties devolved upon his widow and his son, that is, the assessee. The properties left by the deceased father of the assessee consisted of loans advanced by the deceased to certain parties and also bank deposits. The assessee...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Ranjitsinhji Oil Mi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR405(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A somewhat difficult problem, viz., whether the assessee, on the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. C. Kothari : [1971]82ITR794(SC) , is entitled to set off and carry forward the illegal speculation losses against any other business income, is posed before us in all these references. Since the facts involved in these three references and the questions referred to us are identical, we intend to dispose of these three references by this common judgment. In order to evaluate the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties, a few facts which are almost identical need be stated : In Income-tax Reference No. 46 of 1974 the relevant assessment year is 1962-63. The assessee-company is an oil mill with three expellers. The business of the assessee-company is to purchase groundnuts and to crush them, produce groundnut oil and sell the groundnut oil and oil cakes. It incurred a loss of Rs. 44,326 being the amount of difference paid in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »