Gujarat Court August 1981 Judgments
Kaluram Bheruji Vs. Bai Parvati
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj233; (1982)1GLR201
ORDER1. In extremely unfortunate circumstances this matter has come up before me in revision.2. I will very briefly indicate the circumstances under which this matter has come up before me for disposal.3. An eviction decree was obtained by the plaintiff against the petitioner who was the tenant of the suit premises at the relevant time. After the eviction decree was obtained, as appeal was filed by the tenant which came up for disposal before the Bench of Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad,4. When the appeal was heard by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad, on behalf of the tenant a pursis was given to the Division Bench of Court of Small Causes, and in that pursis, it was clearly stated, that if four years time was given to vacate the suit premises, the petitioner tenant would not take any of the contentions raised by him in the appeal.5. The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, without any title, of jurisdiction for reducing the said period, reduced the af...
Tag this Judgment!Dahiben Vs. Chitrabhai Chakabhai Makwana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj188; (1982)1GLR498
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. A question of some importance as to how in cases of fatal accidents of agriculturist's compensation is to be computed arises in this appeal in the following circumstances:2. On 28-4-1979 there was an accident between a truck bearing No. G.T.S. 7023 and a tractor bearing No. G.T.H. 9119. The tractor was proceeding on the road to Borsad starting from village Bodal and lift was given to deceased Hirabhai Motibhai Patel, about whose death the clairr, application concerned in this appeal was filed. He was to go up to Davol village. The case was that in the tractor there were various persons and it was being driven by Mansang Mangalbhai Parmar, original opponent No. 4 (present respondent No. 4). It is the case that the truck in question driven by opponent No. 1 Chitrabhai Chakabhai Makwana (present respondent No. 1), belonging to opponent No. 2 Abdulbhai Bilalbhai Lakhani (present respondent No. 2) and insured with opponent No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (present r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. C. Shantilal and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)165; [1983]141ITR476(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (2) Whether there was any material for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that there was reasonable cause for the assessee not to file its return of income till November 14, 1966 ?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned herein is assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year being S.Y. 2021. 3. This reference arises out of penalty proceedings taken against the assessee in respect of a default under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. The following table would furnish the relevant factual data required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of answering the question : ------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Particulars Date------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Amina Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1531; (1981)GLR1186
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner, a widow, has been detained by the second respondent (District Magistrate, Panchmahals) in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') upon being satisfied that her detention was necessary with a view to preventing her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention is dated April 11/12, 1981. The actual detention commenced on and with effect from April 14, 1981. The grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner on April 17, 1981. The first respondent (State of Gujarat) accorded its approval to the order of detention under Sub-section (4) of section 3 on April 22, 1981. On May 2 1981, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government which was rejected on June 12, 1981. Meanwhile, the Advisory Board considered the case of the petitioner and on June 9, 1981 it reported to the first respondent th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Mahendrakumar Mitharmal. an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR300(Guj)
Income-tax Reference No.184 of 1975JUDGEMENTDESAI J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable to be assessed in his individual capacity in respect of the share income from the firm of M/s. Damodardas & Co. for the assessment, in question ?'The assessment year with which we are concerned herein is assessment year 1969-70, the previous year being Samvat year 2024.The assessee, since deceased, was a partner in the firm of M/s. Damodhardas & Co. His share in the profits and losses of the firm was four annas in a rupee The income derived by him as and by way of his share in profit of the said firm was taxed as his individual income up to assessment year 1968-69.On September 18, 1968, the assessee made a declaration on oath stating that on and with : effect from September 1, 1968, he had impressed his shares in the firm of M/s. Damodardas & Co. with ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Ghanshyam Stores
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC117(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the State of Gujarat, the following question is referred to us for our opinion under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that inter-lining collar cuttings and inter-lining double collar cuttings evidence by bill No. 309 dated 25th May, 1974, and bill No. 387 dated 27th July, 1974, respectively, and sold by the opponent were covered by entry 37 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?' 2. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the rival contentions urged in connection with the aforesaid question. The opponent-firm carried on the business of collar cuttings from different types of cotton fabrics and selling the same. These collar cuttings are meant to be used as materials for stiffening the collars of the shirts, etc. These collar cuttings are, therefore, sold to tailors for their use as inter-materials for the collars of s...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Nareshkumar and Brothers
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC264(Guj)
Bedarkar, J.1. This reference has been made by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), at the request of the State of Gujarat because the Tribunal allowed Second Appeals Nos. 365, 366, 367 and 368 of 1974 filed by the assessee, M/s. Nareshkumar & Brothers. 2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act'), carrying on the business of buying tear-waste of newsprint reels from the printing presses and after cutting them into reams of different sizes selling to printing presses or other dealers dealing in paper. While making the assessments for the four periods, which are financial years 1969-70 and 1st April, 1970, on 5th May, 1970 (both covered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act'), and 1st April, 1971, to 30th May, 1971, and 6th May, 1970, to 31st March, 1971 (both covered under the Gujarat Act), the Sales Tax Officer hel...
Tag this Judgment!Sheth Chinubhai Chimanlal Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR317
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting question arises as to whether a joint Hindu family of less than five persons is subject to disability of clubbing its holding of land with that of individual member thereof under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (the 'Act,' for short). The question arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner Chinubhai Chimanlal holds agricultural lands in his individual capacity as well in the capacity of Karta of his Joint family consisting of himself, his wife, his minor son and minor daughter. The other members of the said Joint Hindu family, namely, the wife of the petitioner, his minor son and minor daughter also hold lands as individuals in their individual capacity. The lands owned by the members of the said family as well as Joint Hindu family are situate within the revenue limits of village Piplaj, Lambha, Laxmipura and Hansol. It appears that on promulgation of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (Known hereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Baldevbhai Natvarlal Barot and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ508; (1982)1GLR56
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Whether after the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh v. Slate of Punjab : 1980CriLJ1125 the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Narsinh Revaji v. State (1981) 22 Guj LR 234, to the following effect:-.Sections 437 and 438 have got to be read together because it is inconceivable that, an accused charged with having committed murder is entitled to anticipatory bail Under Section 438 even if he is not entitled to bail Under Section 437. To take the view that the benefit of Section 438 is available to all accused including persons accused of having committed murder is to defeat the provisions of Section 437. If such a person is released on anticipatory bail, he will always continue to remain on bail until the trial is over. In such a case the bar enacted by Section 437 will never become operative. We are, therefore, of the view that a person accused of having committed murder is not entitled to anticipatory bail Under Section 438 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Walter Paul Master
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1324; (1982)1GLR508
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. The State has come in appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, accused a police Sub-Inspector by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1978 who was convicted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 1750 of 1977 for the offence punishable Under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment,2. The case against the respondent-accused is that on 26-5-1977 at about 0.20 hours he was found having consumed alcohol and moving in the compound of the Town Hall at Ahmedabad He was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where Medical Officer Dr. (Miss) Aruna Madhusudan Joshipura examined him and certified that the accused was not under the influence of alcohol, but that he h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »