Gujarat Court December 1978 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.
Kumbhar Gamnaji Ratnaji Vs. Gurdipsinh Amarsinh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR914
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. Special Civil Application Nos. 1415/75 and 1416/75 by two different petitioners Kumbhar Gamnaji Ratnaji arid Dipaji Magaji respectively are concerned with two different agricultural pieces of land respectively bearing survey No. 187/18 and 187/41 situated in village Ranpur in Deesa Taluka of Banaskantha District. These petitioners challenge the respective order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Annexure-C to both of these petitions. As the background of the Special Applications Nos. 1415/ 75, 1416/75, 886/76 and 887/76 is identical and as the point of law involved in ; these first two petitions is also the same, 1 deal with these four petitions together by this common judgment.2. A few facts at the bottom of this dispute require to be closely noted. These two pieces of land admittedly belonged to one Nasarvanji Parsi. Respondent No. 2 Bai Paru's husband was admittedly the tenant on the land. The said husband of Bai Paru had died prior to 1-4-1957 and so said Bai Paru had...
Moghal Mamadbeg Sherbag Vs. A.W.P. David
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR601
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner challenges in the present petition the order of confiscation of his goods under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as passed by the Collector, Kutch at Bhuj, and as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1975.2. A few facts leading to this petition are as under:The petitioner is a dealer in certain essential commodities and he carries on his business at village Godpar in Bhuj Taluka. It is a small village having hardly 1000 souls. The petitioner is dealing on a small scale in items of daily requirements of the community. On July 19, 1975, the shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Supply Inspector who was acting under the provisions of the Act and the essential articles dealers regulation order issued thereunder. It is alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of 2360 K.G. of groundnuts and it was also found that certain items were not cre...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Sukan Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC344(Guj)
Desai, J.1. The assessee-firm manufactures and sells domestic flour mills. It does not, however, manufacture electric motors required for supplying motive-power to such flour mills. An application was made by the assessee under section 62 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the determination of the question as to what was the correct rate of tax payable on the sales of its domestic flour mills not fitted with electric motors. The assessee contended that the flour mill in question was covered by entry 16(1) of Schedule II - Part A, that is to say, it was machinery used in the manufacture of goods. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, who heard the said application, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the flour mill was a domestic electrical appliance covered by entry 92 of Schedule II - Part A. Against the aforesaid determination of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Gujarat Sales Ta...
State of Gujarat Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC169(Guj)
Desai, J.1. The assessee herein is a company which carries on the business of sale and distribution of petroleum products. The assessee is a registered dealer. One of the items in which the assessee deals is known by the trade name 'Liquefied Petroleum Gas' (hereinafter referred to as 'LPG'). The assessee sold 5,800 tonnes of LPG in bulk to M/s. Kisan Gas Co. Bombay, at the rate of Rs. 537.68 per metric ton, under bill No. 0575. The assessee charged sales tax at 12 per cent. on the total sale price of Rs. 4,568.54 on the basis that LPG was covered by entry 88 of Schedule II - Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, the assessee made an application under section 62 for the determination of the question as to what was the correct rate of tax payable on the sale of LPG in bulk. The contention of the assessee, inter alia, was that LPG sold by it in bulk was not covered by entry 88 of Schedule II - Part A, because it was not supplied in ...
Rameshchandra Tukaram Talekar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Guj1; (1979)GLR535(GJ)
D.P. Desai, J.1. A Division Bench consisting of our learned brothers A. N. Surti,. J., who is one of us now, and A. M. Ahmadi, J.. has referred a question of considerable importance arising frequently in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This question arises in cases where the investigating agency which lays a trap, which trap, according to the prosecution, has succeeded, carries out the demonstration or experiment with the aid of phenolphthalein powder which is applied to the marked currency notes and, as a result of the said experiment, after the trap, the fingers or the clothes of the accused or any part of his body are dipped in a solution of sodium bicarbonate and the result found is the turning of the solution which was white into pink. The question is, whether that solution, which has turned pink, must be preserved by, the investigating agency so as to enable its production before the Court trying the accused when necessar...
Mercury Pharmaceuticals Industries Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC301(Guj)
Desai, J.1. In this reference made at the instance of the assessee under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of purchase tax under section 16 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, on the purchases of glass ampules made against declaration in form 19 was justified on the ground that such ampules were neither raw materials, processing nor consumable stores used in the manufacture of goods for sale ?' 2. The assessee herein is a manufacture of pharmaceuticals. Amongst the pharmaceutical products manufactured by the assessee are included various kinds of injections. The injectible liquid medicine, after it is prepared, is required to be filled in glass ampules made of special glass. The assessee does not manufacture such ampules but purchases th...
M.M. Pandya Etc. Vs. Bhagwandas Chiranjilal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1440; (1979)GLR553(GJ)
S.H. Seth, J.1. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under. The complainant is a Food Inspector. The accused is a milk-vendor having a shop at Baroda. On May 20, 1974 at about 8.00 A. M. the Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused with the intention of taking a sample of milk. Panch witnesses were called. Notice was served upon him declaring his intention td take a sample of the milk. 660 mis. of cow milk was purchased by the Food Inspector. It was sealed in three bottles. 18 drops of formalin were added to the milk as a preservative. One of the three bottles was sent to the Public Analyst on the same day. The Public Analyst made his report on June 1, 1974 and it was received by the Food Inspector on the same day. The Food Inspector served a copy of the report upon the accused on June 24, 1974.2. After obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused, the Food Inspector filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Baroda. The learned Magis...
Ambica Wood Works Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC338(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting point arises in this reference made at the instance of the assessee under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as to what should be the correct meaning of the term 'machinery', its spare parts and accessories. The point arises in the following facts and circumstances : The applicant herein is a dealer manufacturing screen print block tables of wood which are sold to the various textile mills. In the course of the assessment period corresponding to S.Y. 2023, the Sales Tax Officer had levied tax on the sales of these tables under residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of the applicant that the goods in question were covered by entry 15 of Schedule C to the said Act pertaining to machinery used in the manufacture of the goods, spare parts and accessories thereof other than the specified machinery in any of the schedules to the said Act. 2. Against the aforesaid order o...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Lax Tools Manufacturers
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: [1980]46STC115(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. The State of Gujarat has sought this reference under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal held, inter alia, reversing the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on an application made by the opponent-assessee under section 62 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, that the sale of the dental chair is covered under the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the aforesaid Act and not entry 73 of Schedule II-Part A, as held by the Deputy Commissioner. 2. The following question is, therefore, referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sale of dental chair evidenced by bill No. 27/72-73 dated 10th July, 1972, is covered by entry 73 of Schedule II-Part A, or is covered by entry 13 of Schedule III to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?' 3. We are of the opinion that this reference of the State should be rejected obviously for the following reasons. Entry 73 of Schedule II-Part A of t...
Ramji Mandir Narsinhji and ors. Vs. Narsinh Nagar Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj134; (1979)0GLR801
S.H. Sheth, J.1 to 13 ** ** 14. Mr.Shah has tried to raise a new contention before us which did not form the subject-matter of pleadings by the defendants and which was not the subject-matter of issue before the learned trial Judge.15. Mr. Shah has argued that agreement Ex. 175 was concluded between defendant 1 - trust on one hand and the non-existent plaintiff-Society on the other hand. He has further submitted that there is dispute about these facts Now Ex. 175 itself states that the plaintiff-Society was a proposed Society not until then registered. Recitals contained in agreement to lease Ex. 175 also make it clear that Nanubhai J. Desai, the chief promoter of the plaintiff-Society had entered into the transaction evidenced by Ex. 175, for the benefit of the society which was yet to be born.16. The question, which was raised on these facts, was whether there could be any such agreement valid and enforceable at law. Mr. Vyas has objected to this contention being raised principally o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »