Gujarat Court December 1977 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 Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad Vs. Kamalini Khatau
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Guj162; [1978]112ITR652(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. In this case at the instance of the Revenue the following question has been referred to us for our opinion:- "'Whether, on the facts and in the CITcumstances of the case, various amounts totalling to Rs.- 18,0001- received by the assessee of the income of the six discretionary trusts are liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee?" 2. The assessee is an individual. 'The assessment year under reference is 196970, the relevant previous year of account being Calendar Year, 1968. The Rs. 18,000/- received by her from the said trusts was not liable to be assessed in her hands and, according to her, the components aggregating to Rs. 18,000/were -taxable only in the hands of the trustees of the respective trusts in view of S~ 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer rejected this contention of the assessee and assessed the amount of Rs. 18,000/- in her hands under S. 166 of the Act. assessee Is a beneficiary under nine different trusts. She is the sole ...
Jitendra Jayantilal Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR906
S.H. Sheth, J.1. In 1963 the petitioner was directly recruited as a Mamlatdar through Public. Service Commission. In or about 1965 he passed the Revenue Qualifying Examination and was confirmed as Mamlatdar on 3rd September 1965. In 1974 he was due for promotion to the higher post. Since an enquiry had been pending against him, his case was not considered for promotion and he was passed over. In 1977 the two enquiries pending against him have concluded. In both he has been found guilty. In one he was punished with the stoppage of one increment without future effect and has also been censured. In another enquiry also be has been found guilty and has been punished with withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Since his case for promotion to the higher post was not considered during the pendency of two the departmental enquiries against him, he filed this petition in 1975 in which he wants this Court to direct respondents 1 to 4 to consider him for promotion to the higher pos...
Chauhan Rajendrasinhji Takhatsinhji Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Guj126; (1978)GLR785
ORDER1. The question which arises in these three petitions is identical. The facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 11 of 1976, briefly stated, are as follows. The petitioner was a voter at the elections to Wav Taluka Panchayat in Banaskantha District. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were candidates. Nomination paper of respondent 3 was challenged at the time of the scrutiny on the ground that his proposer Vanol Kala Vaja was illiterate and had affixed his thumb impression which was not attested by the Returning Officer though it was identified by some other witness. This objection was raised by respondent 4. The Returning Officer rejected the objection and upheld the Validity of the nomination paper. It is that order which is challenged in this petition.2. The facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 13 of 1976 briefly stated are as follows. Respondents 3 and 4 were candidates at the elections to Wav Taluka Panchayat. The nomination paper of Laxmiben Muljibhai, responde...
ibrahim Haji Musa Haji Rasul Samol Vs. Sugrabibi D/O. Musa Rasul Samol
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR1136
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This second appeal, at the instance of the original defendant, arises out of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Godhra for possession and mesne profits of a residential building which, she claimed, had been gifted to her by her father in July, 1968, and also for possession of moveables lying in the said house and, in the alternative, for a sum of Rs. 3799/- being the damages on account of the said moveables.2. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who happens to be the brother of the plaintiff, contending, inter alia, that the gift in question was neither valid nor legal.3. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the gift was not legal and valid, because the conditions required under the Mohmedan law for completion of the said gift were wanting.4. In appeal, at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff, the learned Assistant Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, reversed the order of dismissal of the su...
Jethalal Lallubhai Vs. Baroda Muni. Corporation and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR448
D.P. Desai, J.1. The petitioner came to be convicted under Section 161(1) (a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ,6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months in case of default, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class (Municipal), Baroda. His appeal against this order of conviction and sentence came to be dismissed. Hence this revision application.2. According to the prosecution, on January 17, 1976 the Food Inspector visited the lodge run by the petitioner and found chillies powder lying in a tin. Therefore, after complying with the necessary formalities he took sample and divided it in three p Articles One of the bottles containing sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was adulteraled The defence of the accused that (his particular chillies powder was meant for personal consumption of ...
Kherunissa Allibhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1977
Reported in: (1978)0GLR234; [1978]113ITR443(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat III, the respondent herein, in respect of an application made by the petitioner for waiving the penalty in exercise of the power conferred by section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is an income-tax assessee and for assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 19711-72, certain penalties were imposed by the Income-tax Officer after passing the assessment orders. For each of three years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, penalties under section 273(b) were imposed and for the year 1970-71, in addition to the penalty under section 237(b), penalty under section 271(1)(a) was imposed. The Income-tax Act was amended with effect from October 1, 1975, and from that day section 273A was inserted. Under that section, the Commissioner of Income-tax has the power to reduce or waive penalties under section 271(1)(a) and also, under section 273(b) if the conditions mentioned in section 273A...
Ahmedabad Advance Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Sundarbhai Budhabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ460Guj
1. This is an employer's appeal made under S. 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, (Bombay Act No. XI of 1947), against the decision, dated 19th October, 1977, made by Shri R. S. Shukla, learned Judge of the Second Labour Court at Ahmedabad, in Original Application No. 696 of 1976 of his Court. The application was made by the employee named, Shri Sundarbhai Budhabhai, seeking a declaration that the act of the mill-company in deleting his name from the muster roll and thereby terminating his services was illegal, unjust, improper and asking for an order of reinstatement in original service with full back wages. 2. It appears that the applicant-employee was serving in the mill-company in S. No. 11 in the third shift of the weaving department since the year 1967 and was a permanent operative. He was working on looms No. 835 to 838. He had got his privilege leave from 8th October, 1975 to 12th October, 1975 and the mill-company had accordingly granted him leave pass (Exhibit 10...
Bhikhalal Bhovan Vs. Sunni Vora Noormamad Abdul Karim and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Guj149; (1978)GLR248
Bhatt, J.1. This is a tenant's revision application under S. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, challenging the decree passed against him in the regular civil suit No. 313 of 197r of the court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Jetpur, and confirmed in the appeal No. 17 of 1973 decided by the Assistant Judge of Rajkot District at Gondal. The tenant was ordered to be evicted from the rented premises. namely, a shop, under S. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that despite the service of a notice, ex. 18, dated 7-10-1971, served on him on 8-10-71, calling upon him to Pay the arrears of rent from 1-11-70 to 30-9-1971, he had failed to pay the same within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand.2. This revision application has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge of this court because it involved a question regarding the meaning of the term 'month' occurring in S. 12(2) of the Rent Act. Under e said provision, no suit for possession could be instituted by ...
Ashvinkumar Narmadashanker Dave Vs. Krishnachandra Narmadashanker Dave ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR892
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A startling and unjust result would follow, namely a litigant who is denied entry to the Court Room would yet have to pay the fees for trying to seek entry thereto in the sense that though his plaint may be rejected and he may be denied a decision on merits or in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code on the ground of failure to comply with the Court order to revise upwards the valuation of the suit and to pay differential court-fees, he would yet be made to pay the same if the order of the learned trial Judge were in be sustained.2. The petitioner instituted a suit, being Suit No. 339/72, in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D) at Baroda. Upon an objection being raised with regard to the adequacy of the court-fees, he was directed to revise the valuation upwards and make good the resultant deficit of Rs. 2260/-. Upon the failure of the plaintiff to revise the valuation upwards and to pay the deficit court-fees on the ground that he was un...
Shamabhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. M.A. Panchal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: (1979)1GLR20
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The original defendant by this appeal challenges the order of City Civil Judge, 4th Court, Ahmedabad, of July 16, 1977, holding that the suit filed by the respondents, who respectively were the Transport Manager of the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service and the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the said Transport Service, against the appellant-defendant for rent of the premises let out to him by the Corporation, was not incompetent for want of prior approval from the Corporation before filing the suit. The appellant-defendant has joined the issue in the suit contending, inter alia, that under Section 481(1)(h)(i) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the authority can institute or prosecute suit only after obtaining the approval of the Standing Committee and since this was not obtained here prior to the filing of the suit, the suit was not maintainable.2. The above contention of the appellant-defendant did not find favour with the learned Ci...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »