Gujarat Court October 1978 Judgments
State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. the Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR732
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals, one by the State of Gujarat and the other by the Gandhidham Municipality, are directed against the judgment of our learned brother S.H. Sheth, J. in a writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Special Civil Application No. 748/74, by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kandla, (hereinafter called the Board) challenging the right of the State Government to recover non-agricultural assessment in the sum of Rs. 56,06, 400/- for the revenue years 1963-64 to 1970-71 in respect of lands vesting in the Board by virtue of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Major Port Trusts Act (Act XXXIII of 1963). Questions of some complexity arise in these appeals and they shall have to be determined in the light of the material facts set out hereunder.2. The Maharao of Kutch was the ruler of the Indian State of Kutch. He conceived of the idea of developing a port at Kandla and translated it into action so...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commr. of Income-tax Gujarat Vs. Speciality Paper Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: [1982]133ITR879(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, the following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for our opinion : 'Whether on the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had been equipped with all the plant and machinery including wet press found necessary to produce the requisite quality of paper and substantial quantity of raw materials necessary for the manufacture of products by the end of June, 1966, the assessee must be held to have set up its business at that point of time, although only trial production followed thereafter and regular commercial production commenced some time later ?' 2. The facts and circumstances of this case in which this question arises are as under : 3. The relevant assessment year with which we are concerned is 1967-68, the corresponding previous year being the 12 months ending on September 30, 1966. It appears that the assessee filed its original return on June 21, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal S. Gandhi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR588
A.N. Surti, J.1. A question of considerable importance is raised by Mr. D.K. Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner by urging, that any member of the State Police functioning either under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 or under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under any other law for the time being in force has no authority of law to deprive any citizen of his actual possession of the residential premises in the name and garb of 'Bona fide Police Investigation', when two rival claimants approach the police, and make complaints that each of the two rival claimants is entitled to possess the actual physical possession of the residential premises. In substance, the debated point at the bar is, that if under the circumstances, the State police adopts a partisan attitude under the colour of its office and authority, and takes steps in favour of one of the claimants to the prejudice and detriment of the other, the only inevitable inference is that the State Police acts with requisi...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Mangaji Vs. Vaktavarmal Gangaram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR664
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original judgment-debtor of one decree in Civil Suit No. 3292 of 158 passed for eviction by the learned Small Causes Judge, Ahmedabad.2. A few facts need to be stated.3. The subject-matter of the dispute is a single room - residential house which originally belonged to the respondent No. 2-Bhuralal Gmgaram who was entitled to claim Rs. per month as rent from the tenant. Said Bhuralal had filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and arrears of rent. On 22nd November, 1962 a decree had come to be passed by the trial Court only on the ground of personal requirement. The tenant-petitioner preferred the Appeal No. 152 of 1967 before the Appellate Bench and by consent, decree was confirmed but with the modification that the tenant was given time upto 31st December, 1970 to vacate. Before the time for executing the decree arose, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Cibatul Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR879(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 2. Whether, in computing the capital employed for the purpose of relief under s. 80(J)(3), an amount of Rs. 8,33,032 representing unistalled machinery should be taken into consideration ?' 3. The facts leading to this reference are that we are concerned with assessment year 1969-70. The assessee is a limited company and, in connection with what is referred to on the record as Expoxy plant, machinery worth Rs. 8,33,032 was purchased in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration but the machinery was not yet installed though it had been purchased by the assessee. The capital employed was worked out so far as Expoxy Plant was concerned at Rs. 7,91,734. The ITO disallowed the claim for the relief under s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the ground that the machinery was not yet installed and, therefore, was not in use. Therefore, according to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Vinaychand Harilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR752(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following three questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law holding that the assessee could be proceeded against either for factual concealment or for fictional concealment under section 271(1)(c) and if the assessee was proceeded for charge of concealment, the penalty could not be levied for fictional concealment under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) 2. Whether the Tribunal has been correct in law in holding that before a penalty under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) can be imposed, the assessee must be given a clear opportunity of meeting a case under such Explanation 3. Whether the Tribunal in this case was justified in law in holding that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) was unsustainable and thereby cancelling the penalty of Rs. 10,000 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : We are concerned in this case with the a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Shankerlal D. Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj166; (1979)0GLR586
ORDER1. The plaintiff, has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 148 of 1978 against the State of Gujarat and others for a declaration that the order made by the Mamlatdar on 17th May 1977 demanding of him the payment of Rupees 50,000/- was illegal and void. He has also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering that amount from him. He valued the declaration under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 30/-, The defendants contended that ad valorem Court-fee was payable on the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which is the subject-matter of the declaration which the plaintiff seeks. The learned trial Judge' held that the plaintiff had properly valued his claim and had paid the requisite Court-fee. It is that order which is challenged by the State of Gujarat in this civil revision application.2. The learned Judge has held that the declaration which the plaintiff seeks is not susceptible of monetary evaluation within the meaning of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhai Becharbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR570
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Three brothers, Kantilal Bechardas Patel, Ishwarlal Bechardas Patel and Ambalal Bichardas Patel, all partners of a firm of Angadias' trading in the name of Angadia Patel Ishwarlal Bechardas & Co., have been detained under three separate detention orders, all of 6th May, 1978, by the Additional Chief Secretary in the Home Department of the Government of Gujarat, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSV) with a view to preventing them from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The fourth brother, Chaturbhai Becharbhai Patel, has filed these three Habeas Corpus writ petitions challenging the orders of detention-Ana. A to each petition, on the ground that the detention order in respect of the three detenus is illegal, mala fide and not warranted in law and for a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith set the detenus at liberty. As-c...
Tag this Judgment!Anantray Jatashanker Trivedi Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR597
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by an employee of the respondent Nationalised Bank of Baroda, challenging the order of punishment confirmed on 29-7-75 by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Two charges were held as proved as per the order, Annexure L, and his one increment in respect of each of the charges was ordered to be stopped. This stoppage was to have the effect of postponing his future increments also. This punishment was provided in respect of three sub-charges. On the second head of the charge, he was given a warning in writing in respect of his behaviour and also enjoining upon him that he should not give any cause for complaint about his conduct in future. It was further ordered that the petitioner's period of suspension from 2-4-73 was to be treated as such. Having failed in his appeal, the petitioner moved this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the said order as illegal and ultra vires on various grounds. The g...
Tag this Judgment!JamludIn G. Painter Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR567
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This revision application has been filed under Section 4 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, against an order made by the Taxing Officer in the matter of Court-fees, It is necessary to note the material facts of the case. The plaintiff filed the present suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for a declaration that the notice of demolition issued by the Municipal Corporation was illegal and void. He also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structure in question. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit fully. The Corporation challenged the decree in First Appeal No. 1000 of 1973. On 9th August 1977 the appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellate decree passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged by the Corporation in a Letters Patent Appeal. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the plaintiff has filed the 'cross-objections.'2. A question arose whether the court-f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »