Gujarat Court July 1982 Judgments
Varsha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Traders and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj166; (1983)1GLR126
S.L. Talati, J. 1. [xxx] 2. Varsha, Engineering Private Ltd. was a partnership concern in the year 1967-Messers. Vijay Traders was also a partner-ship concern. Both partnership concerns had their office at Baroda. They both entered into as agreement Exhibit 112 on 17th Sept., 1967. Varsha Engineering Co. wrote a letter to Vijay Traders and by that letter an agreement between the parties came into existence M/s. Vijay Traders, defendant No. 1 came to be appointed as Distri-butors of Varsha Diesel Engines for the territories of Nasvadi, Tilakwada, Sankheda, Chhota Udepur and Jambu Gam, talukas of Baroda District. We will refer to the terms and condition at and when it would be necessary. 3. It appears that on 2-2-1972 by notice Exhibit 109 the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 51,486-89 plus interest at 12% and according to the plaintiff that was the amount due in the running account by the purchases made by the defendant. Thereafter on 3-3-1972 suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 69,476...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal R. Shah and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1982
Reported in: [1982(45)FLR332]; (1982)2GLR771; (1984)ILLJ99Guj
1. Both these revision petitions are filed by Kanti Cotton Mills Private Ltd., Surendranagar and its Managing Director and Manager. Civil Revision Application No. 2037 of 1971 is filed by three, while Civil Revision Application No. 2038 of 1981 is filed by Kanti Cotton Mills Private Ltd., Surendranagar alone. They arise due to different applications under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wages Act'). Application filed by Rashtriya Mill Majdoor Sangh, Surendranagar impleaded Kanti Cotton Mills Private Ltd., Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mill Company') only as the opponent, while Shri R. I. Shah, Inspector under the Wages Act, Surendranagar, filed the application for payment of wages against all the three i.e. the Managing Director and Director of the Mill Company and the Mill Company. 2. These applications were filed as admitted by the parties round about 10th June, 1981. It is also an undisputed fact that Government of Gujarat in Labour a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendralal Kanaiyalal and anr. Vs. the Additional Special Land Acquis ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj30; (1982)2GLR431
Talati, J.1 and 2. x x x x 3. We may mention that a common law point was raised on behalf of the appellants and it was submitted that the market rate should be considered as it prevailed on the date on which the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Here we may repeat and mention that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 20th Nov., 1969 while notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 9% September, 1971. There was thus a difference of a fairly long period and therefore this point was vehemently urged and using one date or the other was bound to make some difference in regard to the market rate according to the submissions. Therefore it is necessary to decide this question first.4. We have already stated that while preparing the development plan, reservation was made under Section 7(d) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, for the purpose of Gujarat Housing Board. On behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Guj)244; [1983]142ITR84(Guj)
Mankad, J. 1. The assessee in this reference is a registered partnership firm. It was required to furnish its return of income for the assessment year 1968-69, on June 30, 1968. The return was, however, filed on November 7, 1968, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,83,962. In view of the delay in submission of the return, the ITO initiated proceedings for levy of penalty for late submission of return under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred, to as the ' Act'). In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee appeared before the ITO and resisted the proposed action on various grounds. The contention which the assessee raised before the ITO, as set out in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, were as follows :' (1) An application was made to the Income-tax Officer on 26-6-1968, requesting for supply of the form of return of income and as the form was not received, and application in Form No. 6 was made on 28-6-1968, requesting extension of time till 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›