Gujarat Court April 1976 Judgments
Anandji Haridas and Co., Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: (1977)0GLR271
P.D. Desai, J.1. The following two questions of general importance with regard to the taxing of costs on the appellate side have been referred by a Division Bench of this Court (D. P. Desai & N. H. Bhatt JJ.) to the Full Bench.'(1) Where the appellate Court passes an order with regard to allowing proportionate costs to each of the two contesting parties in the appeal which succeeds partly, are the court-fees to be taxed as payable according to the table of fees on the claim actually allowed or in proportion to the court-fees paid on the entire claim in appeal by finding out some percentage of success of the appeal as compared to the whole claim made? (2) Whether adovocate's fees are to be taxed as per the table of fees on the amount of claim allowed or disallowed or whether they are to be taxed on percentage basis as stated above?' 2. These two questions arise, as pointed out in its order of reference by the Division Bench, out of a common practice prevalent in this State in the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Udayan Chinubhai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR584(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In each of these five matters, identical questions arising from the same set of facts have been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and hence we will dispose of all these matters by this common judgment. At the instance of the assessee in each of these five cases, the following three identical questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of the facts that - (a) on partial partition of the HUF the assessee received not only assets but also certain liabilities of the HUF, and (b) the income from the assets received on partition had been considered in computing the total income of the assessee, the Tribunal was right in holding that a part of the interest in respect of amounts due to unsecured creditors should not be allowed either by way of any overriding title or otherwise (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Jadeja Shivubha Dolubha Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR656
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Shortly stated, the facts leading to this petition are as under:The opponent-Corporation, which is the original plaintiff, filed two civil suits being Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1972 and Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Kalavad against the present applicant for his eviction and possession of the suit premises and for arrears of rent and damages. Both the suits were consolidated. The suits were filed on April 29, 1972. During the dependency of the suits, the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 came in force. The applicant, therefore, gave an application in the suits that as the provisions of the said Act relate to eviction of the applicant from the public premises which are admittedly governed by the said Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction was ousted in view of the clear provision contained in Section 16 of the said Act. The applicant prayed that necessary issues be raised in that behalf. The tria...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shahibag Entrepreneurs P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas642(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. This group of company petitions is made to obtain sanction of this court to arrangement effected between Karamchand Premchand Private Limited having its registered office at Shahibag, Ahmedabad; Bakubhai Ambalal Private Limited, having its registered office at Shahibag House, 13, Mulchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay; Mauj-E-Dariya Estate Private Ltd., having its registered office at Shahibag House, Shahibag, Ahmedabad, and Koba Farm Private Limited, having its registered office at Shahibag House, Shahibag, Ahmedabad (hereinafter called for the sake of convenience as 'the transferor-companies') and Shahibag Entrepreneurs Private Limited, having its registered office at Shahibag House, Shahibag, Ahmedabad (hereinafter called for the sake of convenience as 'the transferee-company') under section 391 read with section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the terms and conditions detailed in the scheme of amalgamation, the broad features of which are set out hereinbelow...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmchari Satyanarayan Maharaj Vs. Kantilal L. Dave and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1806; (1976)GLR979
ORDER1. The question which arises in this revision application is whether, in the context of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code), an aggrieved person, who invokes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance, could be refused relief on the ground that unless special circumstances are made out, his revision application cannot be entertained because he had failed to move the Sessions Court. Having regard to the importance of the question, the matter has been referred to a Division Bench. We do not, however, propose to decide the entire case on merits. We shall only deal with and decide the question set out above and pass appropriate orders with regard to the disposal of the case on merits in accordance with the view which we ultimately take. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the revision application.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Haribhai Motichand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1976
Reported in: (1976)17GLR1172
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is the State's appeal against the respondent, who was convicted of an offence under Section 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Ahmedabad, but whose conviction had come to be set aside by the City Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1974. The respondent had been sentenced to undergo S.I. For six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further S.I. For three months by the learned Magistrate.2. The case as made out against the respondent by the Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was that on 24th April, 1974, the respondent had sold 12 cups of prepared tea weighing 14 milliliters which substance was found to have contained saccharine and orange II coal tar dye. As per the prescribed standards, this food was adulterated and so he was prosecuted by the Food Inspector, and as set out above he was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate, but came to be acq...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Cellulose Products of India Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: [1985]151ITR532(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this case at the instance of the Revenue, two questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal. The first out of these two questions is directly covered by the decision of this High Court in CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., (Income-tax Reference No. 19 of 1971, decided on September 11/12, 1973 - : [1976]104ITR510(Guj) ). In view of that decision question No. 1 must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 2. As regards question No. 2, the main question is regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow the assessee to raise an additional ground for the first time before it even though it was not raised before the AAC and to restore the appeal to the AAC for fresh adjudication and whether it had jurisdiction to restore the appeal to the AAC. We find, as regards question No. 2, that the question regarding relief under s. 84 had been raised before the ITO and the AAC and the main question which the Tribunal has ...
Tag this Judgment!Goswami Vrajraiji Ranchhodlalji Maharaj Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-14-1976
Reported in: (1976)1GLR967; [1978]112ITR851(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case at the instance of the accountable person the following question has been referred to us for our opinion by the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased widow, as a member of the Hindu undivided family, was the absolute owner of one-half of the Hindu undivided family's property and that the same passed on her demise ?' 2. The facts leading to this case are that in the instant case we are concerned with the estate of Vraj Priya Bahuji Maharaj Goswami, who died on August 30, 1062, though in the statement of the case, her date of death is stated to be August 15, 1960. Vraj Priya was the widow of one Ranchhodlalji who died in 1961. Ranchhodlalji was the son of Madhusudanlalji who died some time in 1920. Madhusudanlalji had left behind him his wife, Tati, who was alive at the time of Vraj Priya's death and who we are informed is alive even to-day. At the time of Vraj Priya's de...
Tag this Judgment!Nanduben Dayalji Vs. Bhatia Ranchhoddas Lalji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Guj173; (1977)0GLR140
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiffs required them reasonably arid bonafide for their personal occupation and that the defendant had denied the plaintiffs' title. The suit premises are situate at Porbandar.2. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' claim.3. The learned Trial Judge negatived the plaintiffs allegation as to their reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises but held that since the defendant had denied the plaintiffs, title, she had forfeited the lease. In that view of the matter the learned Trial Judge passed in favour of the plaintiffs decree for possession.4. The defendant appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed both the findings and dismissed the appeal.5. It is that appellate decree which is challenged by the defendant in this Civil Revision Application.6. Mr. Shah who appears for the def...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Ramjibhai Hirjibhai and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR411(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. 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 the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction under the provisions of section 154 of the Act for charging interest under section 139 for late submission of the return ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to this reference are as under : The relevant assessment year is 1967-68. The relevant accounting year was S. Y. 2022. The notice to file return under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued on June 26,1967, and served on the assessee on July 15, 1967. It is common ground that by a circular of the department the time for filing return was extended up to 15th August, 1967. On August 11, 1967, the assessee made an application that the time for furnishing return may be extended up to September 30, 1967, for the reason that the data to be furnished with the return of income was not com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »