Gujarat Court April 1981 Judgments
Prabhatsing Nathubhai Mahida Vs. Shantilal Nagjibhai Thakore
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: 1982ACJ348; AIR1982Guj136; (1982)1GLR572
1. In these two appeals arising 'under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the original claimants of the two companion claim petitions as filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaira seek upward revision of damages as awarded to them by the claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company which is respondent No. 3 in First Appeal No. 4 of 1978 has filed cross' objections. Similarly respondents Nos. 1 & 2 in both the claim petitions who are the driver and the owner of the offending truck which was involved in the accident in question have filed cross objections, xxx . xxx xxx2. xx xx xx xx (i) Factual backdrop 3. On the night of 9th March 1976 at about 9.30 P. M. Motor Truck No. GTG 2266, driven by the original opponent No. 1, respondent No. 1, in both these appeals met with an accident near Kaira town in Kaira District As a result of -the said accident, two passengers sitting in the driver's cabin in the said truck were thrown out on the, road from the aforesaid running truck...
Tag this Judgment!Taiyabji Lukmanji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-v
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Guj)204; [1981]131ITR643(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal that the penalty was leviable for concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, even though the assessee had submitted the revised returns for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 was correct in law ?' 2. Since, for the reasons stated hereafter, we are remitting the matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts in detail. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, filed its return of income for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on July 31, 1968, and March 31, 1971, respectively. The assessee filed revised returns for the said assessment years on November 9,...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj26; (1982)1GLR31
ORDER1. x x x x x x x To me it appears that mere refusal to make a reference under S. 410 of the Act without deciding any question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document, the learned Judge does not-decide 'upon a question of law or usage having the force of law or- t1he constructi6n of a document.' Under S. 410 of the Act it is the obligation on the part of the Judge to draw up a statement of facts and to draw the question of law or the question of usage having the force of law or the construction of a document and refer the statement of facts with his opinion on that point or points for the decision of, the High Court. Under the scheme of the Act. the Judge hearing the appeal is competent to decide any question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. Under Section 410 of the Act it is open to the Judge to make reference to the High Court on one of the three subject matters and it is incumbent upon him to make a refe...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Vs. Diwaliben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj145; (1982)1GLR474
1. These two first appeals are filed by the insurance company which has insured the offending motor truck which caused fatal injuries to two labourers on account of a vehicular accident. The claimants in the respective claim petitions before the Tribunal had claimed different amounts. The Insurance Company was made liable to satisfy the concerned awarded claims to the respective claimants in both the claim petitions. That has prompted the insurance company to prefer these appeals under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. I Factual background. In order to appreciate the questions in controversy the have been posed for decision of this Court in the present appeals, it is necessary to have a look at the factual background resulting in the present proceedings. On 9-4-1974, the motor truck in question was driven by its driver, opponent No. 1, in both the claim petitions. The said truck belonged to original opponent No. 2 Bhavani Transport Company as it was insured by the appellant i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Guj)280; [1982]133ITR884(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. When the cup is being filed with the during it cannot be said that one is engaged in drinking. A similar question arises when depreciation is claimed in respect of a building constructed in the course of the erection of a new plant. Can depreciation allowance be claimed for the building for a period : (1) before the completion of the installation of machinery in the said building; (2) before it starts functioning effectively; (3) before the production (even trial run) is commenced and the business of the company of manufacturing an article with the aid of the said machinery has commence 2. Can depreciation be allowed in these facts and circumstances when it is allowable upon the property being used for or in the business of the said unit of the compan In other words, the question is whether it can be said that the building has been used in the business even before the articles, for production of which the plant is set up, have not been produced and the machinery itself ...
Tag this Judgment!Uka Meghji and ors. Vs. Patel Jivraj Pragji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1981
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1406
A.S. Qweshi, J. 1. In this second appeal the court had formulated two questions as substantial questions of law. One is partaining to the adverse possession and the second pertains to limitation. On both these questions the lower appellate court has given a categorical finding holding that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and that the defence of adverse possession was not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. As regards the limitation the lower appellate, court has entered into an exercise of surmise as regards the birth date of the plaintiff which exercise was neither necessary nor proper. The plaintiff was a minor and the defendant No. 1 who was the uncle of the plaintiff was cultivating the suit fields which form part of the joint family property. The contention raised before the appellate court and this Court was that the plaintiff should have filed the suit soon after attaining majority which was presumed to be in 1966. The plaintiffs attainment o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalaxmi Jivraj Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Rajkot
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR731(Guj)
Mankad, J. 1. The WTO issued a notice under s. 14(2) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), calling upon the assessee to furnish return of wealth for each of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee, however, failed to furnish the return. The WTO proceeded under s. 16(5) of the Act and determined the assessee's net wealth at Rs. 1,70,000 in each of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee did not submit any explanation or reply to the show-cause notice issued to her by the WTO. The WTO levied penalty of Rs. 15,400 and Rs.11,200 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, respectively, under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. In the appeals preferred by the assessee, the AAC set aside the orders levying penalty on the ground that the assessee's wealth was not taxable in each of the years under reference. Revenue went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulkodar Ahmed Turava Vs. Lalla Abdulrashid
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj1; (1981)GLR1264
ORDER1. This is a landlord, Revision Application directed against the Judgment of the learned Assistant Judge, burst in Appeal No. 56 of 1976 whereby he reversed the decree of eviction Passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Surat. in Suit No. M of 1975. The brief facts leading to the Revision Application may be stated as under:-2. The petitioner is the landlord of a shop situate in Nondh No. 2227 of Ward No. 7 in Surat. He let it out to the respondent under a rent-note dated 1st Oct., 1963. Exhibit 25. According to the terms of the said rent-note the tenant agreed to pay Rs. 15/- per month as rent for the shop leased to him. Condition No. 5 of the rent-note which is in Gujarati language reads as under:-'5.bhade rakheli milakat harnoe hamars potana DarJina: dhandana upayosa mate bhade rakhi chhe Teno bijo koi upayoga hamare karavo ya kanwa dove naho, teimaje, beeja koi sakhsane bhade ya peta bhade vaparwa apavo nahi Temaja hamara bhadut tarikena ke beeja koi hakko goo...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Ramchandra Kulkarni and anr. Vs. Shantaram Kashiram Gotri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj103; (1981)GLR1108
ORDER1. This revision application raises an interesting question of law, becoming more interesting by the peculiar facts of this case. This revision application has been brought to this Court under S. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act (the 'Act', for short).2. In order to comprehend fully the controversy that has been raised in this revision application, the facts require to be noted fully The opponent herein is the plaintiff of a rent Suit No. 2414 of 1975 which was initially registered as the Regular Civil Suit No. 904 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD), Baroda but it came to be transferred to the Small Causes Court at Baroda itself on that Court being established in the year 1975. The landlord had filed the said suit for possession of the rented premises situated at Baroda. The landlord's case in the plaint was that the defendant No. 1, Usha Ramchandra Kulkarni, the wife of the defendant No. 2, Ramchandra Nineji Kulkarni, was his tenant, that she was in arrears of rent right fr...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukhlal Prabhudas Bhooayata Vs. Jagjivandas Jamnadas Tanna and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)2GLR70
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 has been filed against the order of our learned Brother N.H. Bhatt J. in Election Application No. 11 of 1981 in the Election Application No. 7 of 1981 in Election Petition No. 4 off 1980. The appeal arises under the following circumstances: Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein have filed Election Petition No. 4 of 1980 challenging the election of respondent No. 3 from Jamkhambhalia Constituency to Gujarat State Legislative Assembly during the elections held in May 1980. One of the grounds of challenge is that there was what is known as booth capturing by the supporters of the successful candidate, the third respondent, and in some of the booths bogus voting was indulged in by keeping out genuine voters and there was impersonation at those booths. In connection with these allegations of corrupt practice, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed a summons for directions on January 20, 1981 seeking directions in the petition for the production of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »