Gujarat Court March 1980 Judgments
Lohana Govind Jamnadas Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ917
Thakkar, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal by a 28 year old convict found guilty for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life is as to whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Porbandar was right in taking the view that the facts established at the trial in Sessions Case No. 45/78 would constitute the offence of murder as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and in negativing the plea of the defence that (1) that appellant had acted in exercise of a right of private defence or in the alternative (2) the offence would fall under Explanation (Exception?) 4 to Section 300 inasmuch as it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.2. The incident occurred at about 10 O'clock in the morning of June 26, 1978 at village Madhavpur, at a short distance from the shop of deceased Manu Dhanji aged about 25 who was running a hotel in the said premises. P. W. 4 Bhikha was s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Gujarat Mineral Development ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Guj)73; [1981]132ITR377(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - In these two reference which arise out of the same order of the Tribunal two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and three questions have been referred to as at the instance of the assessee. After the Tribunal delivered its order in appeal, two separate application of reference under s. 256(1) were filed one by the revenue and the other by the assessee and the relevant questions of law have been referred for our opinion by the Tribunal. Since all these questions arise out of the same order of the Tribunal these two reference are being disposed of by this common judgment. The questions referred to us at the instance of the revenue are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fixed deposits in the bank could be included in the capital computation for the purpose of section 84/80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?2. Whether on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!Udyomal Nathumal and anr. Vs. Premchand Trikamdas Baswanl
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR869
A.N. Surti, J.1. The present revision application is directed by the original tenant who was aggrieved by the impugned decree of eviction passed by the learned District Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1977 and which had arisen out of Civil Suit No. 179 of 1976 of the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge, (J.D.) Godhra.2. It may be stated at this stage that the learned District Judge as well as the learned trial Judge took (he view that this was a case where an eviction decree should be passed against the petitioner-tenant under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). It may be also mentioned at this very stage, that it is regrettable that both the the subordinate courts overlooked and did not consider in its true perspective one of the important ingredients of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is well settled by now that unless the tenant neglects...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabhai M. Chemicals Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Guj)68; [1981]127ITR74(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 58,062 being the amount paid as its share for cable laying charges as revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for the purpose of allowance of expenditure under section 37(2) and the application of the rate of 1% prescribed therein the computation of the profit has to be made after making allowance for depreciation not only of the amount computed for the current year at Rs. 14,64,110 but also the amount brought forward from the earlier years, both constituting the amount of depreciation allowance for the current year, and, consequently, upholding the calculation of the Income-tax Officer ?...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Sakinabai and ors. Vs. Gulam Rasul Umarbhai Shaikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj142; (1981)0GLR389
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil P. C. involves a short question of law as to whether documents Exs. 38 and 40 relied upon by the present appellants -original defendants - amount to acknowledgment of subsisting mortgagee rights on the part of the respondent and his father within the meaning of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, .1908). If these documents are held to amount to valid acknowledgement within the meaning of aforesaid section of the Limitation Act, the appellants are entitled to succeed but not otherwise.2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have a glance at certain material facts as are brought out in the case.3. In Dohad town in Panchamahals District is situated an immovable property bearing city survey No. 2810 which was originally an open piece of land over which a hut was constructed later on. The said property was belonging to one Marabkhan Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabhai M Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1980
Reported in: [1953]23ITR74(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 58,062 being the amount paid as its share for cable laying charges as revenue expenditure ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for the purpose of allowance of expenditure under section 37(2) and the application of the rate of 1% prescribed therein the computation of the profit has to be made after making allowance for depreciation not only of the amount computed for the current year at Rs. 14,64,110 but also the amount brought forward from the earlier years, both constituting the amount of depreciation allowance for the current year, and, consequently, upholding the calculation of the Income-tax Officer ?'T...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmanbhai Khumaji Barot and anr. Vs. Balubhai Parshotambhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR201
M.K. Shah, J.1. These three Miscellaneous Criminal Applications arise out of three criminal cases-(1) Criminal case No. 2011 of 1979 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad wherein the two petitioners are the accused persons; (2) criminal case No. 2010 of 1979 on the file of the very Magistrate in which the petitioner is the accused person and (3) criminal case No. 2981 of 1979 also on the file of the same Magistrate in which the petitioner is the complainant. All the 1 (1979) Cr.L.J. 458 three cases arise out of a rather unusual incident which happened on 30th June, 1979 in the campus where the courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates for the city of Ahmedabad are located. Petitioner No. 1 viz. L.K. Barot of Miscellaneous criminal application No. 849 of 1979 who is also the petitioner in the remaining two applications, was at the relevant time, a P.S.I. attached the D.C.B.; Ahmedabad; while petitioner No. 2 Radhuji Amthaji was a police constable attached...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Tobacco Co. Vs. A. Jamadar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Guj202; (1981)GLR343
1. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad, to recover an amount of Rs. 5,06,348-85 Ps. from Messrs. Inter-State Trading Corporation, a partnership firm, and its three partners who are the respondents herein. In the said suit the appellant-plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for attachment 6efore judgment on three grounds (1) that the defendants-respondents Were about to dispose of their property and had in fact started selling off the stock-in-trade; (2) the defendants intended to dispose of their Ambassador and Fiat cars and had in fact negotiated for the sale of those cars with two different parties; and (3) that the defendants were about to abscond to Pakistan. The properties in respect of which attachment was sought were set out in detail in the Schedule annexed to the Notice of Motion. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application for attachment: before judgment on 5th June 1979 and it is against that order of d...
Tag this Judgment!Dhangauri Valji Bhatt Vs. District Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR320
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1971 filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Bagasara-Vadia, who dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1975 in the District Court, Amreli. The learned District Judge, Amreli, party allowed the appeal of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the partial rejection of her claim by the learned District Judge, Amreli, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. The original defendant respondent has filed cross-objections being aggrieved by that part of the judgment of the appellate Court by which the plaintiff's suit was partly decreed. In order to appreciate the real controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant facts leading to this litigation between the parties. I will refer to the appellant as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant for the sake of convenience.2. The plaintiff's case is that or...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharbhai Becharbhai Patel Vs. Patel Gordhanbhai Parshottamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj93; (1981)0GLR338
1. This second appeal is preferred by original-defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 1968 filed by Respondent-Plaintiff No. 1 in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge. Junior Division, Nadiad. The learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit of Respondent No. 1 plaintiff by issuing a permanent injunction against the concerned defendants to the effect that they should not themselves or through others obstruct the plaintiff's cart road and disputed way from Chaklasi road to the northern boundary of Survey No. 47/1 Kharba and finally through cart road in the boundary of Survey No. 49 adjoining the kharba with carts bullock and plough. That decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Kaira at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1974 and that has resulted in the present second appeal at the instance of the aforesaid defendants. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »