Gujarat Court March 1980 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.
Khodubha Harising Gohel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR988
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The history of this petition has a chequered career inasmuch as it has passed through many vicissitudes. The petitioner joined the services on or about January 29, 1955 in the Workshop of the Electrical Department at Morbi of the Western Railways. He was promoted as Electrical Fitter somewhere in 1957 and was working at the relevant time at Bhavnagarpara where the Western Railways have got Divisional Head quarters. It appears that on January 8, 1973, respondent No. 2, who happened to be the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner chargesheeted the petitioner for the offence of misconduct, inasmuch as he assaulted a woman worker in the canteen attached to the said Workshop, as well as insubordination and absconding from duty without leave, and after regular inquiry was held he was served with a penalty notice on January 8, 1973 to show cause why he should not be removed from the service. The petitioner submitted his written explanation on January 18, 1973, which did no...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Mcgaw Ravindra Laboratorie ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1980
Reported in: [1981]132ITR401(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following four questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire expenditure incurred on the foreign tours of Mr. Rohit Chinubhai and Mr. H. P. Gupta was allowable as revenue expenditure ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deprecation and development rebate on Rs. 1,08,000 in the machinery account and depreciation on Rs. 60,000 in the building account ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 24,000 incurred on testing formula is allowable as revenue expenditure ?(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, roads form part of the plant and whether the assessee is entitled to claim deprecation on the amount of Rs. 38,180 ?The facts leading to this reference are as follows :The assessment year under reference is 1967-68, the pre...
K. Mansukhram and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Guj)117; [1982]133ITR65(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J. 1. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. The concerned assessment years are 1966-67, 1968-69 and 1969-70, the corresponding previous years being Samvat years 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, respectively. The proceedings for the assessee's assessment to income-tax for the aforresiad years were reopened by the ITO under s. 147(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the question which arises for consideration is whether the reassessments made pursuant to such reopening are valid. 2. It appears that in the course of the original assessments, the ITO had allowed, as a permissible deduction under s. 40(b), certain amounts which were paid to three partners of the assessee-firm as and by way of interest. Those three partner were representatives of their respective HUFs, in the partnership firm. The claim for deduction of the interest credited to the respective joint family accounts was disallowed but interest credited to the respective joint fa...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Pr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR671(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts of and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was not competent to pass the order in question and accordingly cancelling the said order under section 263 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment year 1965-66, the original order of assessment was passed by the ITO on October 7, 1969. The total income which was considered for assessment was Rs. 1,58,18,442. This assessment was reopened under s. 147 and the order in reassessment proceeding was made on March 25, 1971, by the ITO. In the reassessment proceedings, besides the income originally assessed, an amount of Rs. 68,882 was added on account of deduction cess for the reasons discussed in the reassessment order made under s. 1...
M.J. Purohit and anr. Vs. the Executive Engineer, Gondal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Guj205; (1981)0GLR1
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment and order of our learned Brother. S. H. Sheth, J. in Special Civil Application No. 1181 of 1973. Our learned Brother dismissed the special civil application and discharged the Rule and the original petitioner has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order of our learned Brother.2. The facts leading to this litigation are that petitioner No.1 has been working as an electrical contractor. He is the holder of a licence in that behalf under the provisions of the. Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and is duly qualified for carrying out electric installation work in Junagadh and surrounding areas. The second petitioner is the Secretary of Gujarat Vijali Contractors' Mandal and he thus comes in on behalf of the association of electrical contractors working throughout the State of Gujarat. The Gujarat Electricity Board wanted to carry out electrification work of the staff ...
Noormahmad Hajishama Vs. Anand Mohan Bhardwaj and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj132; (1981)0GLR332
ORDER1. The applicant is the original plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 214 of 1979 filed against the present opponents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for a declaration that he, the applicant, is the absolute owner of survey Nos. 54/1 and 54/2 of village Mahobatpara, Taluka Vanthali, District Junagadh. He contends that the said land originally belonged to one Noormohmed Nagori and he mortgaged the land for Rs. 1,000/- on 24th April, 1951 with Patel Trikam Arjan for a period of 10 years. The said Noormohmed Nagori expired in Junagadh on 5th June, 1960. His heirs Sonbai (mother) and Valbai (daughter) thereupon became the tenants in common, in respect of the said lands: The present applicant plaintiff purchased the lands from Sonbai and Valbai under registered sale deed dated 28th August, 1968 for a valuable consideration without notice of claim of any third party. Under the said document he was put in possession of the lands and it is his contention that even today, he is in actual possession thereof.2. It app...
Noormohmad Hajishama Vs. Anand Mohan Bhardwaj and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR332
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The applicant is the original plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 214 of 1979 filed against the present opponents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for a declaration that he, the applicant, is the absolute owner of survey Nos. 54/1 and 54/2 of village Mahobatpara, Taluka Vanthaii, District Junagadh. He contends that the said land originally belonged to one Noormobmed Nagori and he mortgaged the land for Rs. 1,000/- on 24th April, 1951 with Patel Trikam Arjan for a period of 10 years. The said Noormohmed Nagori expired in Junagadh on 5th June, 1960. His heirs Sonabai (mother) and Valbai (daughter) thereupon became the tenants-in-common in respect of the said lands. The present applicant plaintiff purchased the lands from Sonbai and Valbai under registered sale-deed dated 28th August, 1968 for valuable consideration without notice of claim of any third party. Under the said document he was put in possession of the lands and it is his contention that even to-day, he is in actual possession thereof....
Surat Parsi Panchayat, a Public Trust and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj136; (1981)0GLR269
S.H. Seth, J. 1-23. x x x 24. We now turn to fourth and fifth contentions. The fourth contention relates to the apportionment of contribution between the petitioner on one hand and its lessees on the other hand. Respondents Nos. 5 to 45 are the lessees of the petitioner. The question of paying contribution under the town planning scheme arises in respect of Final Plots Nos. 58, 46, 45, 52, 54, 50, 47, 56, 53, 44, 51, 57, 60, 61, 79, 74, 76, 96, 86, 87, 88, 89, 72, 158, 162, 164, 165 and 166. The Town Planning Officer has ordered the lessees to bear 2/5th of the contribution payable in respect of the aforesaid lands and the lessor - the petitioner - to bear 3/5th of the contribution. Now, this contention was raised before the Board of Appeal. The Board of Appeal has held that it has no jurisdiction to examine this part of the order of the Town Planning Officer. The jurisdiction of the Board is governed by Section 34 of the Act. In 1971, when the appeals were filed before the Board of Ap...
Hargovind Lallubhai Intwala Vs. A.K. Chakravarti and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR60
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by one Billimora Municipal Councillor challenging the order of his having been declared disqualified under Section 11(2)(c) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Collector, Valsad, whose order came to be confirmed by the Government as per their order, Annexure B, dated 28-12-1977.2. A few facts require to be stated. The Municipality was in need of some concrete and like material for the purpose of earning out the preemptory repairs of the road in one street of Billimora. Tenders were invited for that material, but no one turned up with the result that no material could be procured. The Municipality thereafter authorised its Chief Officer to procure materials. One firm offered to supply but the rate quoted by that firm was very high. The President of the Municipality, therefore, contacted the petitioner Councillor who is a partner of one firm M/s. Duvada Stones Supply Company ordinarily dealing in similar goods. Pursua...
Ahemad Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Khokhar Issa Abdulkarim and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR514
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The original plaintiff-appellants have filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the decision of both the Courts below dismissing their suit as barred by res judicata.2. In order to appreciate the real controversy between the parties centering round the question of res judicata, it is necessary to have a look at certain relevant facts. The plaintiffs are the heirs of one Ibrahim Hasanali. Appellants plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are his sons while appellant No. 3 is his daughter. In order to understand the relations between the parties it is profitable to glance through the relevant pedigree. There was one Ibrahim Hasan, common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He had three sons, Abdulkarim, Abdulla and Ahmed and a daughter Amna out of whom Abdulla, plaintiff No. 1, Ahmed Plaintiff No. 2 and Amna, Plaintiff No. 3 are alive while Abdulkarim is dead. He died in the life time of his father Ibrahim. Defendant No. 2 Amna Umar is the widow of that Abdulkarim whil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »