Gujarat Court September 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.
Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gram Panchayat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR354
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Does Octroi duty cease to be octroi duty and become something else if instead of recovering the same on every consignment it is recovered in lumpsum by consent in view of the authority to do so conferred by the statute? Can it be contended by a tax-payer that a higher burden can be imposed on him under the law, but not a lower, and that if a lower burden is imposed the levy is invalidated? These are the questions which come to the fore in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Limited, Ranavav, challenging the right of a Taluka Panchayat to levy a tax (octroi duty) under Section 183(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' The right of the District Panchayat to levy a similar tax under Section 185 is also questioned by the petitioner Company on similar grounds.2. Under Section 178 of the Act taxes enumerated in Clauses (i), (ii) and (xviii) can be levied...
Parikh Ratilal Chandulal and Co. and ors. Vs. Ramanbhai Ranchhodbhai a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR857
S.L. Talati, J.1. This Revision Application raises only one question which is required to be determined. The question is whether ad valorem court fees are required to be paid when an application to set aside an award under Arbitration Act, 1940 is filed in the Court.2. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Bharuch by an order dated 12-9-1978 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 30 of 1975 came to the conclusion that such an application requires ad valorem court fees to be paid. As a result an order was passed that an amount of Rs. 72/-may be paid as court fees. The amount is a small amount but it raises a question of importance and, therefore, Revision Application was filed and our brother Judge S.B. Majmudar has by a detailed order placed this matter before the Division Bench for deciding this controversy. That is how this matter is before us.3. For the purpose of deciding this question Articles 3 and 7 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court-Fees Act, 1959 are required to be considered. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Hiralal Manilal Mody
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Guj)275; [1981]131ITR421(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following three questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not a dealer in immovable properties and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 24,431 is not liable to be included in the income of the assessee for the assessment year under reference (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the amount of Rs. 16,000 out of Rs. 24,431 was dealt with in the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, it could not be included in the assessee's total income for the assessment year under reference (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 24,431, having been received by the assessee by way of damages on account of the breach of the agreement committed by the se...
Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR137
S.H. Sheth, J.1. All these petitions raise common questions of law. Therefore, they are decided by this common judgment.2. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has framed Town Planning Scheme No. 29 which was provisionally sanctioned on 21st November 1968 and finally sanctioned on 1st February 1976. All the lands with which we are concerned in this group of petitions are comprised in Town Planning Scheme No. 29. They are agricultural lands. Survey No. 126/1/1 and Survey No. 171/1/1 in Special Civil Application No. 3295 of 1979 (and no other lands specified in that petition) and all lands with which all other petitions are concerned, have been reserved under the Town Planning Scheme for construction of houses for the employees of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. On 31st March 1976, Government of Gujarat issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the aforesaid lands. It was published on 8th April 1976. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisit...
Patel Hiralal Ramlal and Co. Vs. Chandbibi Pirubhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR307
S.H. Sheth, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner (who is the employer) against the orders made under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In Special Civil Application No. 3098 of 1979, respondent No. 1 is the workman. In Special Civil Application No. 965 of 1980, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the workmen. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing Beedis and in selling Beedis and loose tea. The workmen were manufacturing or rolling out Beedis for the petitioner. They left his service. Thereafter they applied for payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, ordered the payment of gratuity to these workmen in terms of the orders which he made.2. The petitioner appealed against those orders to the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the workmen were not 'employees' within the meaning of the definition of that expression given in the Payment of Gratuity ...
Gujarat Agro. Industries Corpo. Ltd Vs. Municipal Corpo. of the City o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR300
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions are property owners in the city of Ahmedabad. They are liable to pay property tax levied under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The property tax is revisable every four years. During 1979-80, the last revision of the property tax took place. As a result thereof, assessments of properties for the purpose of tax were raised very high. Therefore, the petitioners challenged those assessments in appeals which they filed before the Court of Small Causes under Section 40 (1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 after the bills were presented by the Corporation to them.2. During the pendency of those appeals, the petitioners prayed for interim relief staying the recovery of the tax assessed by the Municipal Corporation. The Court of Small Causes could not give effective interim relief to the petitioners on account of the provisions of Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 40...
Neomer Limited Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT134(Guj); (1980)2GLR625
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The principal question is whether or not the expression 'countervailing duty' means that the statute (Indian Tariff Act of 1934 i.e. Tariff Act) says. 'Countervailing duty' levied by section 2A of the Tariff Act must mean customs duty levied on like articles actually manufactured in India (regardless of the Explanation clause of section 2A which provides that it is leviable on such articles whether or not like articles are in fact manufactured at the relevant time) is the proposition canvassed by the petitioner Company. Why? Because the expression has been so understood in the context of Entry 51 of the State List (List II) of the Constitution of India which empowers a State Government to levy excise on goods manufactured within the State. The competent authority having negatived the view inasmuch as the Explanation clause of section 2A in terms defines the levy as countervailing duty regardless of whether or not a like article is manufactured in India, the petitione...
Rajendra R. Dave Vs. Gujarat Secondary Education Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR318
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a minor. He appeared at the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity). This petition has been filed by him in which he challenges refusal of the Board to reassess his answer books in Mathematics Papers I and II and Biology (Theory). It is necessary to point out in the beginning that though the petitioner is a minor, he has not filed this petition through his next friend but has only shown the name of his father in the petition as 'C/o. R.H. Dave. 'In our opinion this is not enough. The petitioner ought to have filed this petition through his father showing him as his next friend. Mr. Tanna, appearing for the petitioner requests us to permit him to amend the cause title of the petition. We see no reason why his request should be turned down. Accordingly we grant it. It may be stated that the petitioner's father has sworn in the petition. The defect which we ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Dascroi Taluka Co-operativ ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)21CTR(Guj)38; [1980]126ITR413(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for out opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of traveling expenses and for purchase of utensils for presentation to its members on the occasion of the silver jubilee are admissible as business expenditure ?'The assessee in this case is a co-operative society engaged in the business of dealing in sugar, kerosene, steel, etc., distributing the same to its members, both individuals and societies. The assessment year under consideration is the assessment year 1970-71, the relevant accounting period being the year ending June 30, 1969. The assessee celebrated silver jubilee on completing twenty-five years of its existence and on this occasion it sent certain employees to Bombay for the purpose of purchase of wall-clocks for presentation to other co-operative societies who were members of the assessee. T...
Tribhovandas Kishibhai Patel Vs. Iven Daulal Raubens and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1980
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1194
S.L Talati, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act presented by an injured who was the petitioner in M.A.C.T. Application No. 12 of 1976 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1-A), Ahmedabad City.2. According to the petitioner while be was crossing the road on 11-9-1975 at Maninagar, opponent No. 1 dashed from behind while driving the scooter bearing registration No. G. J. G. 3858 and that resulted in fracture of the left femur bone and he was required to be treated at the Nursing Home in Ahmedabad. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation from driver of the scooter who was joined as opponent No. 1 and from the Insurance Company who was joined as opponent No. 2.3. Both the opponents filed a joint written statement at exh. 15. According to the opponents the accident occurred because of the utter disregard of the traffic rules and own safety of the applicant himself. They averred in paragraph 7 of the written statement that the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »