Gujarat Court February 1978 Judgments
The State of Gujarat Vs. Ambalal Maganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1036; (1978)GLR458
D.P. Desai, J.1. This matter has been referred to the Division Bench by Ahmedi J. and it involves a question about the effect of a certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the prosecution of a person for the offence of adulteration of cow's milk where the said certificate while holding that the milk was adulterated differs from the report of the public analyst as regards the particular prescribed standard which is contravened.2. The following facts will illustrate this question, Samples of cow's milk sold by the respondent to the Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation were taken on April 24, 1975. One of these samples was sent to the Public Analyst and the report of the Public Analyst disclosed total solid non fat con-lent - 8.5 per cent and fat content 3.2 per cent. It further disclosed that fat deficiency wag 8 per cent confirmed by other ext...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR27(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner before us is a public limited company and has its registered office at Ranavav-2, Gujarat State. The respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has its factory for manufacturing cement at Ranavav. For its cement plant at Ranavav, the petitioner required power supply for working this plant and the electricity was to be supplied by the Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Board agreed to supply electric power to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner bore part of the cost of laying service line to the factory of the petitioner. An agreement was arrived at between the petitioner-company and the Board on September 23, 1959, and as a result of that agreement the Board was to be the owner of the service line and not the petitioner. In accordance with the terms of that agreement of 1959 the petitioner contributed a sum of Rs. 3,00,600 during accou...
Tag this Judgment!Arivnd Boards and Paper Products Ltd. Vs. M.T. Keshruwala, Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: [1980]124ITR627(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is assessed to income-tax since past many years. The respondent is the ITO who has jurisdiction over the petitioner for the purposes of assessment to income-tax. 2. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee was assessed to income-tax by the ITO, Ward-A, Circle II, Surat who then exercised jurisdiction over the petitioner for the purposes of such assessment. The assessment order for the relevant assessment year (Ex.A) was passed on February 28, 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of the assessment, it had produced the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year and particulars of all expenses incurred and allowances claimed were also given to the assessing authority. One of the items in respect of which allowance was claimed related to the sum of Rs. 29,770 and the claim was based on s. 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 't...
Tag this Judgment!Arivnd Boards and Paper Products Ltd. Vs. M. T. Keshruwala, Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: [1980]124ITR626(Guj)
P. D. DESAI J. - The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is assessed to income-tax since past many years. The respondent is the ITO who has jurisdiction over the petitioner for the purposes of assessment to income-tax.For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee was assessed to income-tax by the ITO, Ward-A, Circle II, Surat who then exercised jurisdiction over the petitioner for the purposes of such assessment. The assessment order for the relevant assessment year (Ex.A) was passed on February 28, 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of the assessment, it had produced the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year and particulars of all expenses incurred and allowances claimed were also given to the assessing authority. One of the items in respect of which allowance was claimed related to the sum of Rs. 29,770 and the claim was based on s. 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Sunderlal Karshanji Min
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Guj121; (1978)0GLR509
Desai, J.1. The question involved in these three proceedings pertains to the interpretation of S. 24 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') in a case where essential supply or service has come to an end not on account of any overt act or omission on the part of the landlord, but on account of some other reason. The question is whether the landlord is bound to restore the essential supply or service when it is within his power to do so and whether his failure so to restore the supply or service would amount to withholding of the essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant as contemplated by Section 24(1) and made punishable under sub-section (4) thereof? A few facts for this purpose may be stated.2. Two prosecutions came to be launched by two different tenants against two different landlords, in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Dwarka under S. 24(4) of the Act. The following circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!Nanalal Amardas Nimavat anr ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR863
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by three vaccinators who had joined the Government service in the year 1962 as vaccinators in the National Small-pox Eradication Programme implemented by the State of Gujarat through its department of Health. The respondent No. 2, the Director of Health Services was the head-officer of the said department. That scheme sponsored and financed by the Central Government was executed by the State Government as its own machinery. When the petitioners and the others were on the State-wise cadre of vaccirators the Government used to impart training to them in the course of sanitary inspectors so that they would be eligible for further promotion as sub-sanitary inspectors, sanitary inspectors and senior sanitary inspectors. As the petitioners say, this was the consistent policy uniformly adopted by the State Government. The persons sent up for training in the Government Training Centres were sent up strictly according to seniority. In the year 1966, these hea...
Tag this Judgment!Gariadhar Gram Panchayat Vs. Nanubhai S. Desai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Guj96
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr. justice P.D.Desai in Special Civil Application No. 1543 of 1973. The question which has been raised is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. In order to examine this question, it is necessary to note a few facts and to determine the nature of the order which was challenged before him and the jurisdiction which he exercised.2. On 30th Nov. 1968, Gariadhar Gram Panchayat passed a resolution selecting a tax. On 26th Dec. 1968 the panchayat published a public notice and invited objections, if any, to the tax which it had selected for imposition. On 24th Jan. 1969 the original petitioner lodged objections before the panchayat. On 12th Feb. 1969 the gram samba unanimously decided to impose the entertainment tax. The objections lodged by the original petitioner were obviously rejected. On 1st March 1969 the imposition of the tax was notified. The original petitioner felt the grieved by it and, therefore, filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Gunvatray Manilal Desat Vs. the Director of Agricultural Marketing and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Guj130; (1978)GLR895
ORDER1. This is a petition by a citizen of India, claiming to be an agriculturist in Bulsar District and also claiming to be a voter in his capacity as a member of the Managing Committee of one co-operative society. The dispute which has, been raised pertains to the election of 8 agriculturists to the Agricultural produce Market Committee Valsad. The term of the Committee was to expire somewhere in June 1976 and so 3-6-1976 was fixed as a date for general elections of the said Market Committee. For the purpose of S. 11 Of ths Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act,' a voters list of the members of the managing committee of co-operative societies (other than co-operative marketing societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market area was required to be Prepared. One authorised person was appointed and he had prepared the list and had published it on 29-3-1976. In that list, 469 voters were notified. They were as per S. 11(1) clause (i) ...
Tag this Judgment!Savitaben Tribhovandas and anr. Vs. Hemkunverben Laxmichand and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR901
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Two questions of an unprecedented nature relating to the interpretation of Section 281 A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 which came into force on November 15, 1972 have been raised in this revisional application by original defendants Nos. I and 2 whose contention that the suit instituted by respondent No. I-original plaintiff Hemkunverben was not maintainable was negatived by the trial Court which heard the relevant issue, being issue No. 12, as a preliminary issue. Aforesaid two questions are:(1) Whether Section 281A of the aforesaid Act as amended is retrospective and applies to pending suits.(2) Whether it applies to suits as against newly-added defendants who are impleaded subsequent to the enactment of aforesaid provision viz. Section 281 A which was incorporated with effect from November 15, 1972.2. The basic facts, are not in dispute. The suit giving rise to this revision application viz. Special Suit N...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Vallavbhai Patel Vs. Mangalbhai Dhulabhai Bhoi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Guj208; (1978)0GLR799
S.H. Shum, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of survey No. 1137/3-4 and survey No. 1138/1-2 of village Vadthal in Nadiad taluka. of Kaira District. On 11th May 1958 he agreed to sell the lands in question to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,501. The respondent paid to the petitioner Rs. 1,501 ie. Rs. 1,000 less than the consideration for the transaction of sale. The sale dead could not be executed because the respondent's house was gutted and he could not pay the balance to the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that he thereupon returned to the respondent the amount that the latter had paid to him and took back possession of the lands in question. It is the respondent's case that the possession of the lands was forcibly taken by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the respondent filed the present suit before Mamlatdar, Nadiad, under S, 70 (b) read with S. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act' for the sake of bre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›