Gujarat Court February 1978 Judgments
Martand Balvant Risaldar and anr. Vs. Chhaganlal Ambalal Gandhi and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1032; (1978)GLR487
A.D. Desai, J.1. This group of 4 appeals has been referred to the Division Bench as they involve a question of interpretation of Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). As the question is one of interpretation of the said rule, the facts of the cases need not be stated.2. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 came into force on June 1, 1955. There was no provision in the said Act or the Rules framed thereunder requiring the Food Inspector or any other authority to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken, Under Section 10 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 9 framed thereunder, a Food Inspector had only a duty to send a sample taken according to the provisions of law to the Public Analyst for analysis. Rule 9 of the Rules was amended by notification No. GSR 1523 dated July 8, 1968 and Rule 9(j) was added. Rule 9(j) thus a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Mohandas Manumal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR226
D.P. Desai, J.1. The four respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 1975 were charged before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 2957 of 1974 with an offence punishable under Sections 4(D)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Bombay Lotteries (Control and Tax) and Prize Competitions (Tax) Act, 1958 (the Act). All the respondents are Directors of a private limited company known as Mohan Benefit Private Limited. The activity of this Company is to open schemes and enroll certain number of members or subscribers to the scheme, Each scheme is also known as a Group; and the number of subscribers is limited to a particular number. Each subscriber has to deposit or subscribe every month a particular amount for a particular number of months. The group in question, as disclosed from the advertisement at Exh. 6 is described as Peoples' Own Group. It is to consist of 2000 members, each member subscribing a monthly subscription of Rs. 20/ for 60 months. Each member is to get a...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Dasa Sorathiya Vanik Gnati Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR1000
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by the trustee of a registered public trusted Styled as Shree Dasa Sorathiya Vanik Gnati, Junagadh.' The subject-matter of the challenge in this petition is the Collector,Junagadh's order-annexure 'H' to the petition, dated 22nd August, 1973 passed by him under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity's sake) and the Government's order-annexure T, dated 10th May, 1974 purporting to have been passed under Section 262(2) of the Act.2. A few facts require to be stated.3. In the city of Junagadh, there was a part of a public street. A part of that land admeasuring 369-1 square yards was sold by the Junagadh Municipality deemed to be constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 at the concessional rate of Rs. 1/- per square yard. Different resolutions had come to be passed by the municipality in this connection. First was the resolution No. 1534 dated 17-3-1971 resolving to sell the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Parmar Chimanbhai Ghemabhai Vs. Pasiben D/O. Parmar Ghemabhai Haribhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR983
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The material facts giving rise to this revision application by the husband, against whom an order of maintenance has been passed, may be stated as under:2. The petitioner, Chimanbhai Ghemabhai was wedded to the first respondent. Pasiben. On 18th August. 1975 the wife filed an application No. 36/75 in the court of the learned J.M.F.C. Kapadvanj under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called 'the Code', seeking maintenance from, her husband. Summons of that application was served on the husband by registered post but he did not enter on appearance and allowed the matter to proceed ex parte. The learned J.M.F.C. proceeded ex parte and by him order dated 31st December, 1975 he awarded maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 60/- per moths from the date on the application i.e. 18th August. 1975. The wife then took out recovery proceedings on 12th March. 1976 for the amount of maintenance which was in arrears for six months and Rs. 40/- awar...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Textile Works and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer Circle-iv, 3-a, ( ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR28(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. We may mention in this case that though in the petition the vires of section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been challenged on the ground of constitutional validity, Mr. Pathak for the petitioner stated that he was not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of section 217(1A) and hence we are dealing with this matter on the footing that there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of section 217(1A). 2. The petitioner No. 1 in this case is a partnership firm registered with the income-tax authorities under the provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners Nos. 2,3 and 4 are three of the five partners of the first petitioner-firm. Along with those five partners one minor, Shashikant Mohanlal Panchal, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership during the relevant period of assessment. Subsequently, on attaining majority, the said minor was taken up as a partner of the first petitioner-firm. The first petitioner manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Saiyad Aga Mohmed Saiyedm Ohmed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR71
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following three substantial questions of law as formulated by this Court arise in this Second Appeal:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the suit instituted by the respondent was liable to be dismissed, so far as the claim made by the amended plaint was concerned, for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order dated August 28, 1968, Ex. 77, made by and in the name of the President by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, was not shown to have been made on valid authority?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order, Ex. 77, was void being in violation of the rules of natural justice?2. In order to appreciate the issues raised in the above questions, it would be profitable to advert shortly to a few facts which have ultimately resulted in this s...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Patel and anr. Vs. N.N. Majmudar, Income-tax Officer, Ward-b (Ass ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR1(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The first petitioner in each of these two special civil applications is a different individual but the second petitioner in both these matters is the same firm, namely, Messrs. Modern Trading Company. The first petitioner in each of these two special civil applications was partner of the second petitioner-firm and the two partners were the only partners in this firm. The two partners had equal shares. The firm and the two partners were being assessed to income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, till 1961, and thereafter, under the Income-tax Act 1961. The first respondent is the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction to assess the said firm and the second respondent is the Tax Recovery Officer having jurisdiction over the area. The third respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the petitioners in these cases. He has also jurisdiction over the recovery proceedings as against the petitioners. 2. The second petitioner-firm (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Manilal Modi Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-v, and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: [1978]113ITR318(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the karta of Madhukar Manilal Modi, Hindu undivided family, which is assessable to wealth-tax under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The following table furnishes the particulars with regard to the returns filed by him for three different assessment years and the assessment orders passed pursuant thereto : Sr. No. Assessment year Date of filing Date of theof return assessment order1 2 3 41. 1969-70 19-09-1973 29-12-19732. 1970-71 -do- -do-3. 1971-72 29-11-1971 24-09-19732. It would appear from the particulars set our in the above table that the return for the assessment year 1971-72 was filed earlier than the returns for the previous two assessment years and that the returns for the previous two assessment years were filed on the same date. The Act provides penalty for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return within the time allowed and the minimum and maximum limits of penalty have been...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-v, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: [1978]113ITR360(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner, which is a registered partnership firm, is assessable to income-tax. For assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 it was required to file its return of income before June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30, 1969, respectively, under section 139(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. It, however, filed its returns for those assessment years on March 19, 1969, October 23, 1969, and October 23, 1969, respectively. Under section 271(1)(a) the Income-tax Officer is empowered, if he is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 within the time allowed, to direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty the amount to be computed in accordance with the provisions made in the said section. In the present case, in view of the returns for the three assessment years having been furnished beyond the prescribed time limit, the Income-tax Officer passed an o...
Tag this Judgment!Poonjabhai Vanmalidas Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Circle Iv-a (Spl), Ahmed ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR38(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is assessed to Wealth-tax as a Hindu undivided family. The assessment years with which we are concerned in the present proceedings are assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, the relevant valuation dates being samvat years 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively. The petitioner is being assessed to Wealth-tax and the assessment years are in connection with Wealth-tax dates. The respondent is the Wealth-tax Officer having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner under the Wealth-tax Act. For the assessment year 1965-66, the respondent passed assessment order on February 22, 1971. The immovable property was ascertained at Rs. 13,10,000 and the net wealth was ascertained at Rs. 9,07,560. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessment order was passed on February 22, 1971. The immovable property was ascertained at Rs. 13,01,600 and the net wealth was ascertained at Rs. 8,21,574. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessment order was passed on Febr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »