Gujarat Court November 1979 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.
Mrs. P.K. Martiyani Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-1979
Reported in: (1983)2GLR927
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. It appears to be expedient in the interest of justice that the letter dated September 25, 1979 in the Times of India, Ahmedabad Edition, dated September 29, 1979 written by Mrs. P.K. Kartiyani of Kottayam which reads as under be treated as a petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (the clipping of the said letter is annexed hereto and marked Annexure 'A'):Sir,-I am unfortunate destitute woman of a backward community. My husband Mr. T. K. Thankappan, died of cancer on April 8, 1977 while he was in the service of Gujarat Refinery, Baroda, as a painter. He left behind me and our three children. Life is a struggle for' existence in our case as we have no means of livelihood. My husband was a member of the provident fund family pension scheme under the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad. His account No. is GJ 4951/55166. Under the scheme, I am eligible to get from the Regional PF Comm...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Shilaben Kanchanlal Rana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR421(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. In this group of two appeals at the instance of the CIT, Gujarat-III, the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated June 30, 1976, invalidating the acquisition of immovable property being shops, bearing Nos. 1 to 5 on the ground floor of the building known as YASHKAMAL standing on land of S.No. 91-92 (part) on Ring Road, Surat, within town planing scheme No. 8 of the Surat Municipal Corporation, which were sought to be acquired by the order of the Competent Authority, Acquisition Range II, Ahmedabad, dated March 12, 1976, has been challenged. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in these appeals it would be necessary to advert to a few facts which have led to those two appeals. 2. The owners of the shops in question were Bhagwandas R. Reshamwala and other who happen to be partners of M/s. Reshamwala Market in which the shops were situated. By a deed of conveyance dated November 26, 1973, they conveyed the right, title and interest in the shops togeth...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Shilaben Kanchanlal RanA. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Guj)25; [1980]124ITR420(Guj)
MEHTA J. - In this group of two appeals at the instance of the CIT, Gujarat-III, the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated June 30, 1976, invalidating the acquisition of immovable property being shops, bearing Nos. 1 to 5 on the ground floor of the building known as YASHKAMAL standing on land of S.No. 91-92 (part) on Ring Road, Surat, within town planing scheme No. 8 of the Surat Municipal Corporation, which were sought to be acquired by the order of the Competent Authority, Acquisition Range II, Ahmedabad, dated March 12, 1976, has been challenged. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in these appeals it would be necessary to advert to a few facts which have led to those two appeals.The owners of the shops in question were Bhagwandas R. Reshamwala and other who happen to be partners of M/s. Reshamwala Market in which the shops were situated. By a deed of conveyance dated November 26, 1973, they conveyed the right, title and interest in the shops together wit...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat 7 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR513
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by the Associated Cement Company Ltd. against the State of Gujarat and other officials of the state challenging the order of the Executive Engineer calling upon the petitioner company to pay up the sum of Rs. 4,38,945/- as the charges for water drawn by the petitioners-company from Kaldhera Pool, situated at Sevalia Taluka of Thasra in Kaira District, for the period between 1-10-1963 to 30-6-1971, as detailed in Annexure 'C to the petition.2. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacture of cement and has its factories at various places, including the one at Sevalia in Kaira District. In the year 1948, the company appears to have established its factory at Sevalia and for that purpose the Company was in need of regular supply of water. The Kaldhera Pool so known, is a site having the continuous flow of water from Mahi River and the said area was at that time under the Revenue jurisdiction of the Talukdar of Sonipur who was known as the Thakore Sah...
Haresh Octroi Co. Vs. S. Ramabhadran and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR551
P.D. Desai, J.1. The Bagasara Nagar Panchayat, which is the second respondent in the Letters Patent Appeal and petitioner in the writ petition, is constituted under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it exercises powers and performs functions under the various provisions of the Act. Section 180, inter alia, ernables a nagar panchayat to lease by public auction or private contract to collecting of octroi. The petitioner-Panchayat gave an advertisement in a daily news-paper on July 27, 1979 inviting applications from persons interested in taking such lease. A public auction took place on August 9, 1979. The appellate in the Letters Patent Appeal gave an advertisement in a daily news-paper on July 27, 1979 inviting applications from persons interested in taking such lease. A public auction took place on August 9, 1979. The appellate in the Letters Patent Appeal gave a bid for Rs. 8,26,500/- and the third respondent in the said appeal gave a bid for...
Surendraprasad Jayshanker Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1016; (1979)2GLR459
A.N. Surti, J.1. Paras 1 to 41 (x x x)42. Before we part with the case, we must mention that in course of the trial before the learned Special Judge, the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 was not properly done and to some extent was violative of the very spirit and the purpose of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.43. The Presiding Judges while examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. must be on caution to see, that each and every circumstance appearing against the accused from the prosecution evidence must be separately and distinctly put to the accused so as to enable the accused to explain the said circumstance. If the questions put to the accused are unusually longish and take in their sweep a number of circumstances appearing against the accused from the prosecution evidence, the possibility of the accused being misguided cannot be ruled out, though the same may not cause any serious prejudice or any prejudice to the accused. This ...
Subhash Industries and ors. Vs. Bhagwandas Ratanji Panchal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj149; (1979)2GLR338
ORDER1. An interesting question, which arises in this revision application, is as to whether a party to a partnership deed who repudicates yhe contract with regard to partnership, can be permitted to rely upon a term in the deed of partnership itself and demand a reference to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in the said deed of partnership.2. Plaintiff Bhagwandas Ratanji Panchal and two of the three defendants viz. Manchharam Morarji Panchal (defendant No. 2) and defendant No. 3 Subhaschandra Manchharam. Panchal (son of defendant No. 2 Manchhararn) entered into partnership to do business in the name and style of M/s. Subhash Industries (defendant No. 1) doing business at Vapi, district Bulsar. A deed of partnership was executed on 15th Nov., 1968 and was signed by all the three partners viz. the plaintiff and the said two defendants. ********* The business continued for some time and thereafter, the plaintiff addressed a notice through his advocate on 14th December...
Govind Krishna Abhyankar Vs. Kamalakar Vishnu Ganpule
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR517
M.K. Shah, J.1. This revision application filed by the original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in regular civil suit No. 58 of 1976 of the court of the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) at Baroda filed by the opponent-plaintiff, is directed against the order passed by the trial court on its finding on a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction and it raises an important question regarding the scope and ambit of Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ('the Act').2. The plaintiff is a trustee of a trust known as Brahman Sabha, Baroda, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Defendant No. 1 is also a trustee and President of the said Brahman Sabha while defendant No. 3 is the Vice-Precedent and Chairman of the Managing Committee of the said Brahman Sabha.3. It was the plaintiff's case that a hall which was newly constructed by putting up a storey on the original structure of a ground and first floor building of the trust property, was constructed for the purpose of ...
Saurashtra Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad Muni. Corpo.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR461
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an interesting petition by an auction purchaser of the property situated in the city of Ahmedabad challenging the attempt of the municipality to put the property to auction sale in order to satisfy its dues of taxes leviable from the property.2. A few facts deserve to be pertinently noted:The property in question belonged to one firm Messrs. Shivlal Virchand Contractors. As back as on 24-2-1955, the said owner of the property had mortgaged the property with the then Bombay State Finance Corporation and the said debt came to be inherited by the Gujarat State Finance Corporation. Said M/s. Shivlal Virchand Contractors had also created second mortgage on 13-10-1964 of the very property in favour of another creditor, M/s. Rajendrakumar and Co. Then for the years 1965-66, 1966-67,1967-68 and 1968-69, Municipal Taxes also came to be due in respect of that property and by virtue of Section 141 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, this property was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›