Gujarat Court June 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.
Shardaben Jayantilal Shah and ors. Vs. R.S. Belsare, Tax Recovery Offi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1977
Reported in: (1978)0GLR636; [1978]112ITR156(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners, dependants of the deceased defaulter-assessee, Jayantilal R. Shah alias Maniar, have filed this petition challenging the order dated March 26, 1977, at annexure 'B', by the Tax Recovery Officer rejecting the petitioners' objections against the attachment of the compensation amount awarded to them by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in its decision at annexure 'A' dated August 25, 1975. The petitioners have challenged this decision of the Tax Recovery Officer as being ultra vires depriving the petitioners of their fundamental right to hold these compensation moneys which have been awarded to them in their own right by the competent tribunal ignoring the settled law and proceeding on extraneous considerations. The deceased assessee, Jayantilal, had met with an accident while he was travelling on August 16, 1973, along with the petitioners in a motor taxi from Limbdi to Ahmedabad when the motor taxi collided with an S. T. Bus coming from the opposite s...
Barkatali Abdulrahim Kasamwalini Vs. Sohiniben Jethalal Parikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Guj27; (1977)GLR913
ORDER1. This is a revision application by the original tenant, whose application, being Misc. Application no. 208 of 1976 for fixation of standard rent under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act had come to be dismissed by the Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Baroda, on the ground that the prayer sought for by the tenant was barred under the principles of res judicata. This tenant's -civil revision application no. 26 of 1976 also came to be rejected by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge Baroda, on the ground of estoppel. It is these orders of the two authorities below that are sought to be irnpugned, by this revision application.2. A few facts are necessary to be stated ' in order to appreciate the various contentions and submissions raised and made in this case. The applicant tanant had filed an application No. 836 of 1975 in the Court of the Civil judge (J. D) Baroda on 19-1-75 for fixation of standard rent * The landlord, I am told at the,Bar, had, before that, served a notice...
Rana Mafatlal Gordhanbhai Vs. Mahendrabhai Babubhal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR529
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A question of some importance has been raised in this petition as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction prima facie to determine whether a person is a debtor or not under the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 (No. 35 of 1976) before any suit, appeal, application for revision or an application to execute a decree for recovery of a debt abates under Section 11 thereof. The question arises in the following circumstances in this case:The opponent herein who is a judgment-creditor obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 3160/- against the petitioner in Civil Suit No. 433 of 1973 on the file of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Cambay. The attachment which was obtained before the judgment by the judgment creditor was continued and the said property was put to sale in execution of the said decree. It appears that the petitioner, who is a judgment debtor filed some objections against the executability of the decree on June 28, 1976. In the objections, it was contended, inter alia, t...
Gaurishankar Vs. Bhikhalal Chhaganlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Guj72; (1977)GLR805
ORDER1. This revision application under S. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act illustrates how the provisions of the Rent Act are misused, how poor tenants are harassed, and how lightly eviction decrees are passed in total disregard of their impact and consequences. It becomes a matter of greater concern when it is realised that such a decree has been passed in this case against a poor tenant who is occupying one small room on a rent of Rs. 5/per month in the town of Jetpur and who may not be able to procure a roof ever his head if 'he were turned out.2. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit room in about 1958 In 1963 his brother died and his widow (Kalaben) came to live with the petitioner, as there was nowhere else she could go. In course of time, according to the petitioner he entered into a Natra marriage with her. Thereafter they had three sons one in 1966,,one in 1968 and another in 1969. The suit -giving rise to the present petition w...
Jiviben Lavji Raganath Vs. Jadavji Devshanker and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Guj32; (1977)GLR883
Desai, J.1. This matter arises out of the execution of a decree. The appellant is the heir of original plaintiff-decree holder whose suit for eviction under the Saurashtra Rent Act was dismissed by the trial Court and the District Court. That original plaintiff filed a Second Appeal in the year 11965; and during the tendency of the said appeal, he died on April 3, 1968. But the High Court and the respondents in the High Court did not know of the death of the said appellant-plaintiff. The result was that the appeal was decided on merits; and the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the Courts below and decreed the suit for possession. Naturally, therefore, present appellant took out execution proceedings for execution of that decree; and in execution proceedings, the respondents judgment-debtors contended that the decree in favour of the plaintiff having been passed in Second Appeal after his death and he being the sole appellant, was a nullity;...
Balubhai Maganlal Ghaswala and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Guj63
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, ordered tw be heard peremptorily, raises some important and interesting questions. The factual background of this petition needs to be stated in a nutshell.2. The respondent No. 3 is Shree Bulsar Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Bulsar, a co-operative society floated under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, with the objects to encourage proper development of agricultural industries amongst members on co-operative lines by introducing modern methods of agriculture and by promotion of principles of co-operative and joint farming methods, so as to secure best advantages of modern large scale agricultural production to*the owner or the tenant cultivators of land and to establish for that purpose sugar manufacturing factory and to manage it. For achieving the aforesaid objects, the society was to raise share capital and deposits from members to raise funds by floating debentures under Government guaran...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Jyoti Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR973(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. The Tribunal has posed the following questions in the present reference : I. Assessment year 1963-64 (R. A. No. 276 (AHD) /73/74) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 9(b) of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, was not valid as there was no 'information' ?' II. Assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 : R. As. Nos. 277, 278, 279 and 280 (AHD) /73-74) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that rehabilitation reserve, reserve for doubtful debts and gratuity reserve created by the assessee were includible in computing the capital base for determining the statutory deduction ?' 2. For the assessment year 1963-64 the assessment was sought to be reopened under section 9(b) of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 on the ground that certain reserve created for specific purposes and the exc...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›