Gujarat Court February 1979 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Jyoti Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR499(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '1. Assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1965-66 and 1966-67. - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payments made to M/s. Calor-Emag, Germany, are of a revenue nature 2. Assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing depreciation as well as development rebate to the assessee in respect of capital expenditure incurred for acquiring drawings, designs, etc., from M/s. Gilbert, Gilkes & Gordon Ltd., London ?' 2. In order to bring out the real controversy between the parties and to focus attention of all concerned on that real controversy, we will reframe question No. 1 as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that ...
Tag this Judgment!Devben Wd'o. Sadhuram Joturam Vs. Motiram Hotamchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: (1979)1GLR875
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These six different Revision Applications filed by the common petitioners, but against different respondents initially arose out of different Distress Warrant proceedings against these opponents. These Distress Warrant Applications were filed by these petitioners under Section 53 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, which is admittedly applicable to the City of Ahmedabad. In each of these Distress proceedings, the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad had issued Distress Warrants, but before their properties could be seized, each of them had deposited the amount of the claim and contended that Sadhuram, through whom the two petitioners in each of these six petitions claimed was adjudged to be a trespasser in respect of the suit land in a proceeding between Sadhuram on one hand and the owners of the land, namely, some members of the Surti family of Ahmedabad, and, therefore, they were not liable to be proceeded against. The right of the petitioners, therefore, was seriousl...
Tag this Judgment!Dineshchandra Chunilal Vs. Thakkar Chhotalal Popatlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: (1979)1GLR832
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is the landlord's Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, challenging the appellate judgment, which robbed him of the decree of eviction passed in his favour by the learned trial Judge.2. The suit in question, being No. 170 of 1972 in the court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Dhoraji, had been filed by this applicant for eviction of the tenant on the ground mentioned in Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed the suit and so the tenant preferred the Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1975 which came to be allowed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot District at Gondal only on the ground that the notice of eviction was not valid. The ground that weighed with the learned appellate Judge was that the plaintiff had given the eviction notice and had filed the suit as the karta of the Joint Hindu Family of his deceased father Doshi Chunilal Savchand, though he had 8 married sisters, who by operation of law, could not be the members of his...
Tag this Judgment!Atic Industries Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS391D
ORDERS.H. Sheth, J.1. Application praying to declare that Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as introduced by Act 22 of 1973, is ultra vires and to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash or set aside the orders dated 10-12-1976 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat and dated 28-8-1978 of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Bombay (Exhibits 'FT and 'N') and/demands letter dated 31-12-1976 of the Superintendent of the Central Excise, Atul (Exhibits 'J-1' to 'J-5') and also letter dated 19-1-1977 of the Superintendent) CentralExcise Atul (Exhibits 'K-1' to K-5') and to direct the respondents to withdraw or cancel the said orders at Exhibits 'H' & 'N') and the said demands at (Exhibits 'J-1' to 'J-5', 'k-1' to 'K-5') and...etc.Messrs Atic Industries Limited is the petitioner. The petitioner is...
Tag this Judgment!Cibatul Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS404D; (1980)GLR284; (1980)GLR825
ORDERS.H. Sheth, J.1. Cibatul Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. 1956, is the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the manufacture'). They are manufacturing U.P. Resins, M.F. Resins and Expoxy Resins. They are 'excisable goods' within the meaning of that expression given in Section 2(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Excise Act'). Ciba Geigy of India Limited are their wholesale buyers. They are a company incorporated in India and are hereinafter referred to as 'the buyer'. Ciba Geigy Limited is a third company incorporated in Switzerland and is referred to hereinafter as 'the Swiss Company'. 65% of the share capital of the manufacturer is held by Atul Products Limited, 30% of its share capital is held by the Swiss company and the remaining 5% of its share capital is held by the buyer. So far as the buyer is concerned, 65% of its capital is held by the Swiss Company. The Swiss company has registered trade mar...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Vithaldas Sanghani Vs. Sarojbahen Dhirajlal Ranpura
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Guj200; (1979)0GLR987
1. An unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution has been dismissed by the trial Court has approached us by way of this appeal.2. A few facts leading to this litigation may be briefly stated: The plaintiff-appellant was serving at the relevant time as a steno-typist in the Bank of Baroda at Rajkot drawing a total pay of Rs. 564.45 p. on the date of the institution of the suit including bonus and other payments. The plaintiff had purchased a house in Ramkrishnanagar Street No. 7-A at Rajkot for Rs. 10,500/- and spent about Rs. 5000 in carrying out modifications etc. in the said house. The case of the plaintiff further is that he wanted to sell this house and to get another house of his own on the land which he wanted to purchase by taking loan from the bank; for that purpose in the year 1968 he got published an advertisement inviting offers from prospective purchasers of his house; that the said advertisement did not bring any fruit and the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanbhai Bhomraj Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1446; (1980)GLR328
ORDERM.K. Shah, J.1. A question with regard to the interpretation of Section 319 of the Criminal P.C., 1973 ('the Code'), arises in this Miscellaneous Criminal Application, which is now converted into a special criminal application, at the request of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.2. The question arises in the following circumstances.3. The present petitioner is original accused No. 4 in proceedings which are pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad, being Criminal Case No. 1158 of 1977. Respondent No. 3 Keshavlal Pdpatlal attached as Accountant to a firm named Anwarbeg Gausbeg and Company, Manufacturing and Distributing Incensed Sticks (Agarbatti), filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 17-6-1977 complaining that there was violation of the registered trade mark of his firm in 'Guru Darbar Agarbatti' supplied by accused No. 1 Dahyabhai Ambalal and accused No. 2 - Narendrabhai Manibhai Modi (present respondent No. 2) and one...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Chandulal Jethalal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR353
M.K. Shah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 4th court, Ahmedabad dated 6-1-1978 convicting the accused for the offen under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, ('the Act')2. A few facts may be stated briefly so that the points which arise in these appeals may be considered. Accused No. 1 is the Manaz proctor and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the Factory Manager and Assistant Salesman respectively of M/s. Bhalakia Mills Company Limhed Ahmedabad ('the company'). By an order dated 22-9-1975 the Direlr in the office of the Textile Commissioner issued a require it of the powers conferred by Clauses 20 and 21-A of the Cotton Tex Mle Control Order, 1948 ('the order') read with Textile Commissioner's (sic) canon dated 4-3-1966 directing the company to pack during ending on 31-12-1975 a quantity of controlled cloth not less than (sic) sq. meters Similarly by another requisition dated 31-12...
Tag this Judgment!Alembic Glass Industries Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1979
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT444(Guj)
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Alembic Glass Industries Limited is the petitioner. The petitioner is manufacturing glass and glassware which fall under Tariff Item No. 23A in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has got a factory at Baroda in the State of Gujarat. The glass and glassware produced by the petitioner company are purchased by wholesale buyers. Anyone can buy the petitioner-Company's products in wholesale. Amongst the buyers the excisable goods produced by the petitioner-Company are manufacturers of medicines, producers of oil, manufacturers of chemicals and milk Dairies. It is the case of the petitioner-Company that it is not necessary that glass and glassware manufacturing by it should be sold in packed condition. According to them they can be sold in naked condition. The petitioners next contend that in some cases their buyers supply the packing material and sometimes they purchase the packing material from the market, pack the goods in it and s...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Jashubhai Prabhudas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ839; (1980)GLR374
M.K. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar on 31-1-1977 in Summary Case No. 142 of 1976 acquitting the respondent-original accused for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act ('the Act').2. The accused is the Managing Director of a company called PoJysteer (India) Limited, Bhavnagar, The complainant-factory inspector K.N. Gandhi visited the factory premises of the company on 12-11-1975 and found that the factory was closed. On going through the records, he learnt that a worker named S.Y. Vaishnav who had worked in the year 1975 had not been paid the amount of leave with wages though his employment was terminated with effect from 20-10-1975. As provided in Section 79 of the Act, such payment of leave with wages in respect of a retrenched worker has to be paid on or before the second working day, which in the instant case would be 21st Oct. 1975 as the worker's services were ter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »