Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR107
D.P. Desai, J.1. This petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda, on 29-4-1976 whereby he negatived the claim of the petitioner to copies of documents and statements recorded by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. Really speaking, this should be treated as Criminal Revision Application inasmuch as the order passed refusing the supply of copies is challenged.2. The claim to the copies arose in the fallowing circumstances:The petitioner came to be arrested on March 19, 1976 and was then taken on remand. He gave an application for being released on bail It appears that the allegation against him was that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 5(3)(a)(b) and 12 of the Indian Explosives Act and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The last mentioned offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. In the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1978Guj226; [1978]115ITR824(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessee carries on business of manufacturing oil. The assessment year under reference is 1965-66, the previous year being S.Y. 2020 which ended on November 4, 1964. In S.Y. 2020, the assessee entered into certain forward transactions of sale of oil tins. These transactions were utlimately settled otherwise than by actual delivery of the goods and the settlement resulted in a loss of Rs. 27,157. The assessee debited the said amount to the profit and loss account in its trading books and claimed it as a business loss. The ITO, following the decision of this court in Chimanlal Chhotalal v. CIT : [1968]69ITR129(Guj) , held that only forward contracts for purchase of raw material entered into by an assessee in the course of his manufacturing business to guard against loss through price fluctuations in respect of his forward contracts of sale for actual delivery of the goods manufactured by him are saved and expected by prov. (a) from the class of speculative transactio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR581
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. An out-dated 12th century approach has been made in a proceeding under the Guardians And Wards Act in relation to the custody of a child and the question that has been placed in the focus by the trial Court is as to who has a preferential right to the custody of the child, the father or the mother, rather than the real question as to the welfare of the child. Instead of posing the question, what is in the interest of the child and whether the welfare of the child which is the paramount consideration in such matters demands that the custody should be with the mother or the father, the learned trial Judge has concentrated and laid stress on the question as to who is entitled to the preferential custody and as to who is at fault in the matrimonial dispute between the parents.2. The dispute relates to the custody of a male child who was about six years of age when the application for custody giving rise to the present appeal was instituted in 1970. The child, Subodh, was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)0GLR498; (1977)IILLJ127Guj
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question which is involved in this petition is whether an employee, who is found to be receiving a salary more than Rs. 1,000 per month on the date on which the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 came in to force, is entitled to the payment of gratuity under the said Act on the basis of 5 years' continuous service on a non-managerial post in the past on the salary of Rs. 1,000 per month. This question arises in the following set of facts. 2. The petitioner is a limited company and the respondent was in its employment as Sales Engineer. The respondent joined the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Sales Engineer on 20th June, 1962 on the salary of Rs. 450 per month. He was, thereafter, promoted as Sales Engineer on 1-5-1970, when his salary was more than Rs. 1,000 per month. The Gratuity Act, 1972 came into force on 16th September, 1972. On that date, the respondent was receiving the salary of Rs. 1,200 per month, i.e., more than Rs. 1,000 per month. Thereafter the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1977]107ITR214(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case by an order of reference dated September 4, 1974, the following question has been referred to this Full Benc : 'When by a taxation statute, sanction of penalty is provided in order to enforce compliance with a particular provision of the Act and the section providing for penalty requires that the non-performance of the obligation without reasonable cause shall attract that particular penalty, (i) is absence of reasonable cause an ingredient of the offence for which the penalty is provided; and (ii) has the taxing authority to prove absence of reasonable cause or has the party in default to prove the presence of reasonable cause ?' 2. The order of reference makes it clear that it was in the context of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that this question arose before the Division Bench and, therefore, in order to answer correctly the question that has been canvassed before us, we reframe the question as follow : 'When section 271(1)(a) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR374
D.P. Desai, J.1. One interesting question which arises in this revisional application is as regards the liability of the tenant for eviction on account of non-payment of permitted increases as contemplated by Sections 10, 10A 10AA, IOC, 10CC, 10D and 10E of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rent Act'), when the rent as per contract has been paid by him and accepted by the landlord without making any increase in the rent. The suit pertains to possession of the residential premises, and according to the plaintiff (present petitioner) they were in possession of the tenant (present opponent) at a monthly rent of Rs. 18-91 Ps. It was further the case of the plaintiff that there was increase in the taxes of the suit premises; and the defendant-tenant was called upon to pay the same. The plaintiff also claimed an increase on account of providing of amenity of flush latrine as the municipality compelled him to do so. The opponent-d...
Tag this Judgment!