Gujarat Court February 1983 Judgments
Bhupatlal Govindji Vs. Bhanumati Dayalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj10; (1983)2GLR1137
1. This is a second appeal filed by the original defendant of the Regular Civil Suit No. 663 of 1976 dismissed in his favour and against the present respondent by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamnagar, whose judgment had come- to be set aside by the learned District Judge in this respondent plaintiff's regular Civil Appeal No. 138 Of 1982 in the District Court at Jamnagar.2. The respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit against the present appellant defendant for a declaration that it was she who was the tenant and occupier of a godown situated in the City of Jamnagar ever since about the year 1955 after the defendant had surrendered Us tenancy of the godown in favour of the landlord, that after her husband's death in the year 1973 she was paying rent to the landlord and was enjoying the property as a tenant and that the defendant, the elder brother of her late husband, was interfering with her possession and she had, therefore, prayed for a declaration of her status a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. New India Industries Ltd., Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1983
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC25; 1983(14)ELT1763(Guj); (1983)2GLR1108
Ravani J.1. When the tax is paid with full knowledge of facts and law, without any compulsion or undue influence or fraud, would it be open to the tax payers to claim refund of the amount of tax so paid simply on the ground that the tax recovered is either found or declared to be unlawful Moreover, if the tax payer does not plead or prove that the amount of tax in question was paid either under a mistake or under coercion, even then, will he be entitled to get refund of the amount of tax only because later on it is discovered that the recovery of the tax in question was unlawful Further question which has arisen in this matter is : That which is considered unjust and importer by the court while sitting in Court Room No. W. (i.e., while exercising writ jurisdiction), will the court be compelled to do the same thing because it is sitting in Court Room No. A (i.e., while deciding appeal against a decree in a suit) The question is when the court finds that a party is likely to be unjustly ...
Tag this Judgment!Baba Visram Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (Establishment) Western Rai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1162
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this petition the petitioner challenges the order No. ET/28/ 203 dated 31-12-82 purporting to be issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (B), Western Railway, Baroda, whereby the petitioner was told that he would be retired from the Railway service with effect from 8-1-1983 A. N. as having reached the age of superannuation, whereupon the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court on 6-1-1983. This Court issued notice and granted interim stay on 7-1-83.2. The petitioner belongs to the back-ward class community of Harijan and was employed as Sweeper in the Railways on and from 25-10-1944. At that time the petitioner did not have any proof of his birth date. Hence he was sent for medical examination to ascertain his age. His approximate age having been ascertained by the medical officers, the date of his birth was entered into the register as 6-12-1924 which was signed by the petitioner as having been accepted by him to be nearly correct. During the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Engineering Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle-ii, Ahm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Guj)195; [1984]145ITR105(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J. 1. The question which arises for our consideration in this petition filed under art. 226 of the Constitution of India is, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interest u/s. 214 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the excess amount paid during the relevant financial year on the dates subsequent to the date u/s. 211 of the Act for payment of instalments of advance tax. 2. Petitioner, a limited company registered under the Companies Act, was served with a notice under s. 212(3) of the Act and was required to pay advance tax in three equal instalments for the assessment year 1975-76. Petitioner's year of account was calendar year 1974 and, therefore, it was required to pay advance tax in three equal instalments on the following dates under s. 211 of the Act, namely, 15th June, 1974, 15th September, 1974, and 15th December, 1974. There is no dispute as regards the payment of the first two instalments which were paid on the due dates. The t...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. C.B. Rathi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR970; [1985]151ITR542(Guj)
Desai, J. 1. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing oil engines, water pumps, etc. The petitioner also carries on the business of exporting oil-engines manufactured by it. 2. The petitioner is assessed to income-tax under the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question arising for determination in the instant case relates to assessment year 1975-76, the relevant previous year being Samvat year 2030. 3. The petitioner having been previously assessed to income-tax by way of regular assessment under the Act, the ITO having jurisdiction over the petitioner made an order under sub-s. (1) of s. 210 of the Act requiring the petitioner to pay advance tax in the sum of Rs. 89,438 on the basis of the total income of Rs. 1,55,715 in respect of which the petitioner was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1973-74. The notice of demand dated...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim Shah Mohamad Vs. Noor Ahmed Noor Mohamed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj126; (1983)2GLR961
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This involves point about an oral gift, trade by a Mahomedan and also an oral will, Some of the donees and legatees am actual heirs under the Mahomedan law, while the one, i.e., the plaintiff, who has filed the suit, is not.2. The suit property belonged to one Shah Mohmed Noor Mohmed. lie had four swis - (1) Ibrahim (appellant No. 1), (2) Usman (appellant No. 2), (3) Noor Mohmed (respondent No. 1's father), who died during the life-time of Shah Mohrrked and (4) Ismail. He had also one daughter narned Kulsumbibi (appellant No. 3).3. Plaintiff Noor Ahmed Noor Mohmed filed Civil Suit No. 3615 of 1973 on the ground that. his grand-father Shah Mohmed had made an oral gift of some properties which are mentioned in Schedule 'A, to the plaint, in favor of the three appellants and respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). This oral gift is alleged to have been made on 1-4-1953. It was also his case that before going to pilgrimage to Mecca, his grand-father also made an oral will in favo...
Tag this Judgment!Jiviben Vs. Patel Dahyalal Lakhudas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj6; (1983)2GLR871
1. to 3. xx xx xx 4. Next question is, whether repudiation which was made before Cl . (iv) of sub-section (2) Of S. 13 came to be inserted into the Act can be availed of thereafter. Section 13 provides for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds stated therein. Sub-section (2) thereof enumerates additional grounds on which a wife can present a petition for that purpose. These provisions, as they existed before amendment by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, were found by the legislature to be inadequate. It also found that there were frequent violations of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act; and, therefore, it was necessary to confer a right of repudiation on girls who are subject to such marriages. To achieve these objects, S. 13 was amended. Relevant part of the amended section reads as under :' 13 (1) ... ... ... ... ..(2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground(i)to (ii...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Gosaibhai Bhagat Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR103
M.B. Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of the conviction of the appellant - a primary school teacher - who by his stupid and misguided act, may be out of desperation or frustration has taken life of one Kulinchandra J. Purohit, Administrative Officer, Education Department, District Panchayat, Broach, in a most tragic manner. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Broach in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1979 decided on 28th December 1979, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, for the offence under Section 436 of I.P. Code rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, for the offence under Section 449 of I.P. Code rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, for offen...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Bakulbhai Rana Vs. Lunawada Nagar Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1986Guj105
ORDER1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is one of the members of Lunawada Nagar Panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), has challenged a resolution passed by the said panchayat by which motion of no-confidence was passed against the Chairman of the Panchayat, respondent 2 herein Kamlashanker Bhuleshwar Dave. Mr. A. H. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner requested me to permit transposition of respondent 2 as petitioner No. 2 in order to meet the preliminary objection raised by the respondents to the effect that the person who is affected by no-confidence motion was remaining in the background and was not interested in challenging the said resolution. Respondent 2 is accordingly permitted to be transposed as petitioner 2 at the oral request of Mr. Mehra. The impugned resolution passing motion of no-confidence against petitioner 2 is dt. 21-1-1983. The said re...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Vankar (Macwana) Vs. Indian Farmers Fertiliser
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)1GLR725
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. Enter through the door marked '10(1)' and not through the door marked '33C', says the Labour Court, whilst rejecting the recovery application made by an employee who complains of that though he is in fact doing the work (for which a higher pay scale is agreed upon) he is not paid on that basis by the employer. It is common ground that the very Labour Court would have jurisdiction if a reference was made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I. D. Act) inasmuch as the number of employees is less than 100. It is, however, the view of the Labour Court that it cannot do so in exercise of powers under Section 33C(2) in the absence of a reference under Section 10(1). Can the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act be ousted merely by denying that he is doing such work? Can he be obliged to apply to the State Government to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the I.D. Act on the premise that an industrial dispute exists...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »