Gujarat Court March 1976 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 State of Gujarat Vs. Thakar Lalshanker Umiyashanker and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Guj170; (1977)0GLR420
C.V. Rane, J. 1. This application -in revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', on an application for refund of court-fees made in M. A. C. T. Case No. 18 of 1971 on 15th Sept., 1973.2. The petitioners in the above ease had made an application for claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In accordance with the provisions of R. 292 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, an amount of Rs. 950/- was paid as court-fees. The matter was, however, compromised for Rs. 7,000/-. The claimants, therefore, made an application for refund of Rs. 695/- out of the amount of Rs. 950/- paid by them towards the court-fees. The learned Tribunal held that only the amount of Rs. 475/- which was half the amount of the court-fees paid by the claimants should be refunded to them. Being aggrieved by the abov...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Tarun Commercial Mi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR745(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. In this reference, we are concerned with the ambit and come of section 40(a)(v) and section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as were in force in the relevant assessment year 1969-70. The assessee is a limited engaged in manufacturing cloth. The assessee-company in pursuance of the agreement of June 14, 1967, with its directors, S/Shri Indravadan Pranlal, Surendra Pranlal and Madhukant Pranlal, appointed them as the managing directors of the assessee-company in the first instance for a term not exceeding five years with effect from July 1, 1967. As per clause 5 of the said agreement, the assessee-company has, as and by way of remuneration, agreed to pay and provide to each of them, inter alia, a sum not exceeding a/3rd of 10% on the net annual profits of the company or Rs. 2,000 per month as remuneration subject to certain conditions, and free use of car to be maintained by the company for their personal as well as business use of the company and also the expenses in ...
Malangbhai Gabubhai Vs. Dhankorben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Guj97; (1977)0GLR305
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This litigation represents the grossest abuse of the protection given by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') to the tenants.The facts of the case briefly stated are as under.2. Landlord Malangbhai filed Regular Civil Suit No. 377 of 1958 against tenant Thakorebhai in the Court of the Civil judge (junior Division) at Baroda for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that he requires them reasonably and bona fide for their personal occupation. That suit was filed on 10th April 1958. On 22nd June 1959, consent decree was passed under which tenant Thakorebhai was given five years time to vacate the suit premises. That period ended on 22nd June 1964. Execution application was filed by the landlord to execute the consent decree for possession because on the expiry of five years' period, tenant Thakorebhai did not vacate the suit premises and hand ...
State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Dahyabhai Desaibhai Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR232
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A person having a shop on the Makarpura Road at Baroda for selling milk, charged with having stored or sold an article of food, namely, milk which was adulterated, pleaded guilty and was convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 450/- by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Muni.) Baroda Shri M P. Shah. The sentence was considered prima facie inadequate and a suo motu notice was issued by the High Court to opponent Dahyabhai Desaibhai Parmar to show cause why the sentence imposed by the trial Court should not be enhanced. The opponent did not appear in response to the notice.2. The record shows that the milk which was purchased from the shop of the opponent was adulterated as alleged. The report of the public Analyst is at Ex 7 and it shows that the sample contained extraneous water to ...
A.P. JaIn and ors. Vs. C.N. Jotwani, Inspector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR299
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. At the threshold of a prosecution powers of the High Court have been invoked by Directors of a Public Limited Company which has admittedly failed to pay (and retained with itself) contributions deducted from the wages of the employees under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (E.S.I. Act). When financially powerful economic offenders successfully stall proceedings in Courts for years at the very doorsteps of Courts by disingenuous technical weapons, the image of the judicial system suffers an eclipse in the eye of the common man. Even so, if the process of law is being misused or ends of justice pressingly so demand inherent powers may have to be exercised if inevitable. This perspective must loom large on the horizon in this petition by the petitioners who contend that prosecution should not have been instituted against them for failure to submit the contribution cards and returns under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (E.S.I. Act) even in respect of am...
Prem Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR654(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case at the instance of the assessee the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, conclusion reached by the Tribunal in holding that the assessee did not commence its business prior to June 26, 1965, and consequently not entitled to expenditure incurred by it amounting to Rs. 58,600 from January 1, 1965, to June, 26, 1965, was correct in law (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of loss of Rs. 46,970 for the assessment year 1965-66 ?' 2. We are concerned in the instant case with assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee is a private limited company and its year of account is the calendar year. The relevant previous years are January 1, 1964, to December 31, 1964, and January 1, 1965, to December 31, 1965. The assessee-company was incorporated on November 4, 1963. For assessment year 1...
Mohanlal Motilal Sevak Vs. Bhikhabhai Himatlal Sevak and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR865
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The appellant in this appeal has applied for leave to withdraw the appeal. Respondent No. 2 has made this Civil Application for transposing him as the appellant in case the appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal.2. Mr. K.C. Shah who appears for the appellant has vehemently opposed the application made by respondent No 2 for transposing him as the appellant. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties it is necessary to state a few facts. The plaintiff-appellant is the son of the brother of defendant No. I and defendant No. 2, respondent No. I and respondent No. 2 respectively. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for partition of the joint family property. The learned Trial Judge held that the suit property belonged exclusively to defendant No. I (respondent No. 1) and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has challenged that decree in this appeal. If the plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the appeal, the finding recorded by the learned Trial ...
Keshavlal Vithaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR601(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case at the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that conditions for allowing development rebate were not fulfilled in the case of the assessee ?' 2. We are concerned in the present case with the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee is a registered partnership firm and carries on the business of manufacturing Sat-Isabgul. The assessee maintains its accounts on the basis of Samvat year and the previous year for the purposes of the assessment year under reference is Samvat year 2023, that is, the period November 13, 1966, to November 2, 1967. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee filed its return on August 18, 1969. In Samvat year 2023, machinery worth Rs. 2,73,771 was installed. When the profit and loss account of the partnership firm was first prepared, no provision for development rebate reserve wa...
Topandas Kundanmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR237(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts in question were received by the assessee during the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 and were taxable in the said assessment year ?' 2. A few facts may be stated in order to understand the rival contentions of the parties. 3. The assessee had purchased land of survey Nos. 225/2 and 225/4 admeasuring 5 acres 24 gunthas and 5 acres and 18 gunthas, respectively, situated within the municipal limits of the city of Jamnagar for Rs. 1,000 in December, 1956. It appears that out of the said two pieces of land, the Government sought to acquire the entire survey No. 225/4 and a piece of 3 acres out of survey No. 225/2. The relevant notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on October 15, 1959. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on July 18, 1962...
Vasava Hiraben Vs. Ishwar Bharti Karsanbharti Gauswami and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1976
Reported in: 1976ACJ464; AIR1977Guj146; (1977)0GLR467
ORDER1. An unfortunate and illiterate widow belonging to a scheduled tribe, whose husband died in a motor vehicle accident, has been driven to this Court because her petition claiming compensation has been rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out. The circumstances (to be presently mentioned) under which the delay was occasioned speak for themselves and it is somewhat strange and agonizing that the second opponent (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation) should have shown such determined diligence in setting up the plea of limitation under those circumstances against a person like the Petitioner.2. In the course of an accident which occurred on November 15,1972 the husband of the petitioner was killed. The vehicle involved in the accident is owned by the second opponent. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Broach on March 17, 1973, that is to say well within ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »