Gujarat Court September 1983 Judgments
Gujarat State Deputy Engineers Association and ors. Vs. State of Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR335
S.A. Shah, J.1. This is a petition filed by Government servants of the Public Works Department claiming minimum of time-scale of the cadre of Deputy Engineer when they were promoted to the cadre of Deputy Engineer. The grievance appears to be that instead of giving them minimum of the time-scale which was at that time Rs. 220/- they were given Rs. 200/- per month which was the salary fixed for the probationers who were directly recruited to the post of Deputy Engineer, P.W.D. Petitioner No. 1 is the recognised association of Deputy Engineers in Gujarat Service of Engineers Class II in the Public Works Department and rest of the petitioners are the persons who are claiming higher initial salary of Rs. 220/- or revised initial salary of Rs. 300/- as the case may be. This petition is filed on behalf of the Deputy Engineers who are similarly situated and who are claiming initial pay of Rs. 220/- instead of Rs. 200/- granted to them by the Government when they were promoted from the lower c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Zaverbhai Bapuji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR167(Guj)
Nanavati, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court under s. 27 of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was leviable in accordance with the provisions of section 18(1) of the Act, prior to its amendment on April 1, 1969, in so far as the returns filed by the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69 were concerned ?' 2. For the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68, the assessee filed returns of his wealth on October 3, 1969, and for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, he filed them on January 20, 1970. Really, he should have filed them on or before 30th June of each of those assessment years. The WTO notices these defaults during the assessment proceedings, and after they were over, he initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1) of the Act. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee was that the returns were ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Guj)148; [1985]151ITR75(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. In the course of the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee-company, which has a textile manufacturing unit at Ahmedabad, made a two-fold claim : firstly, in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,03,437 being a payment made to the Textile Commissioner as compensation for the shortfall in production of controlled variety of cloth and, secondly, being the development rebate on the air-conditioner and electric fans admittedly installed in the office premises of the company. The first head of the claim was disallowed by the ITO on the short ground that the impugned payment was for infringement of the statutory order and was, therefore, in the nature of penalty. 2. The AAC, however, in appeal at the instance of the assessee, allowed the claim following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rustom Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. 3. The view of the AAC was confirmed by the Tribunal on appeal at the instance of the Revenue. 4. As regards the claim for the development rebate, the ITO was o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Purshottambhai Maganbhai Ha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Guj)276; [1985]156ITR150(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. The assessee is a HUF and their land bearing final Plot No. 105 situate within Sajpur in Khanpur area within the municipal limits of the City of Ahmedabad was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of main office building of the Reserve Bank of India, vide order and award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer made on February 3, 1971. Since long-term capital gains arose out of the compensation received in respect of the acquisition of assessee's land, a question arose for the first time in the course of the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 as to whether it was liable to be brought to tax in the said assessment year. It should be noted that though the possession of the land was taken over on December 29, 1970, it a appears to be by private negotiations since it is common ground that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had not acquired the possession in exercise of his urgency powers under s. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also an admitted position ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderlal Nanalal (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii, Ah ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR25(Guj)
Mehta, J. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-family was not entitled to deduction of the remuneration paid to Mahendra Sunderlal ?' 2. A few relevant facts need be stated in order to appreciate the question which has been referred to us. 3. The assessment year under reference is 1970-71, the previous year being S. Y. 2025, which ended on November 9, 1969. The assessee is a HUF and its Karta is one Sunderlal Nanalal, who was a partner in the firms of M/s. Nanalal Mansukhram and M/s. Mansukhram Bhagwandas. It appears that on account of old age and indifferent health of the said Sunderlal, he was not in a position to attend and devote full time to the business of the said firms. The karta, Sunderlal Nanalal, therefore, engaged Mahendra Sunderlal, one of the coparceners of the assessee-family, to help him in the management of the business of the said firms. Mahendra Sunderlal had to act as representative of the k...
Tag this Judgment!S.H. Shirekar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR128]; (1984)2GLR1238; (1985)ILLJ91Guj
1. The only question raised in this petition by the petitioner is whether the respondent-Railway can recover the salary and wages paid to the petitioner employed on a promotional post on which he has actually worked for number of years before he was reverted to the lower cadre on account of adjustment of his seniority vis-a-vis other employees. 2. At the outset I may say that it is a very sorry state of affairs for a mighty administration like the Railway to come out with the order at Annexure-C dated 7th September, 1977 directing recovery of the excess salary claimed for the period from 19th April, 1961 to 31st December, 1976 amounting to Rs. 5,777-40 ps. from the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was recruited in the respondent-Railway as Tracer in the year 1955 and was promoted to the post of Junior Draftsman on 19th April, 1961. The petitioner was there after further promoted to the post of Junior Estimator from 23rd December, 1962 and thereafter to the post of Senior Estimator on 16th...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Patel and Company Vs. Manubhai Karsanbhai Parmar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR386; (1984)IILLJ398Guj
Ravani, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, in Reference (LCS) No. 190 of 1979 by which the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated on his original post (Helper) with 50% backwages from the date of discharge till reinstatement. The case of the workman was that the working with the petitioner-Company for last about 2 1/2 years before the date of reference. On December 7, 1979 without any reason and without any fault on his part, he was discharged from service. Despite the demand having been made by him, he was not taken on service and therefore he preferred his claim. The reference having been made by competent authority, the respondent workman submitted his statement of claim while the petitioner-Company, thought served with a notice did not appear. Hence the Labour Court proceeded ex parte and after examining the workman and on the basis of the evidence recorded, passed an award on August 11, 1980 directing the petitioner-Compa...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Shah Vs. L.C. Joshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR394
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The short question involved in this petition is, as to what meaning should be given to the term 'Legal Practitioner' occurring in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', for short). The question has been directly covered by a decision rendered by us today, i.e., September 20, 1983, in Special Civil Application No. 3706 of 1981 wherein we have held that the term 'Legal Practitioner' occurring in Section 36(4) of the Act cannot be given restricted meaning as defined in the Advocates Act, 1961. In the facts, and circumstances of that case, we held that a person, though not qualified to hold Sanad as an advocate and who has admittedly not taken the Sanad of an advocate, but who was in fact doing the practice of law, would fall within the term 'Legal Practitioner' used in Section 36(4) of the Act. While taking this view we have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Roy v. Union of India reported in : 1982CriLJ340 , wherein it...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Soneji, Vice President, Jamnagar Shopping and General Employees ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1350
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Petitioner No. 2 who was in service of respondent No. 1 was removed from service. An industrial dispute arising out of the demand made for his reinstatement in service of respondent No. 1 with full back wages was referred for adjudication to the Second Labour Court at Rajkot under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The Labour Court permitted S.P. Chag and petitioner No. 1 President and Vice President respectively of Jamnagar Shipping and General Employees' Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, to represent workman petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1, the employer, sought permission of the Labour Court to allow Mr. J. N. Shah, a practising Advocate to represent them. However, since the petitioners refused to give their consent to the appearance of Mr. J. N. Shah, the Labour Court did not grant leave sought for by respondent No. 1. Thereupon an application was made by respondent No. 2, a clerk of M...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Rohit and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: 1985CriLJ556
J.P. Desai, J.1 to 3. X X X4. We may mention at the outset that the accused No. 1 who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of the 'offence punishable Under Section 304(1) I.P.C. has not filed any appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. In this connection, the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing for the respondents submitted that even though accused No. 1 has not filed any appeal against, the order of conviction, this Court can while appreciating the evidence in this appeal, consider whether the conviction of accused No. 1 for the said offence is justifiable or not. He urged that even though no appeal has been filed by the accused No. 1, this Court, while hearing this appeal, can exercise revisional powers and acquit accused No. 1 of the said offence, even though he has not filed any appeal. He has relied upon the decisions reported in (1) Emperor v. Panchaksharam AIR 1938 Mad 723 : 1938 (39) Cri LJ 871, (2) State Government, Madhaya Pradesh v. S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »