Gujarat Court June 1984 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaluben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1984
Reported in: II(1984)ACC339; [1986]60CompCas534(Guj)
Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendant No. 3 of the Claim Application No. 45 of 1973 decided by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Himatnager. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 here are the original claimants and respondent No. 6 is the jeep driver, respondent No. 7 is the jeep owner and the appellant herein in this appeal is the insurance company, then known as the General Assurance Society Ltd., but now merged with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondents Nos. 8 and 9 are the driver and the owner of the tractor involved in the accident and respondent No. 10 is the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with which the said tractor was insured. Respondents Nos. 11 and 12 are the parents of the deceased, Gulabbhai. The claim application had been filed by the widow and minor children of the deceased, Gulabbhai, who while travelling by that jeep driver by the original opponent No. 1, had come to die because of the serious injuries in that head-on collision between t...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai Chhotabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR262
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the Public Notice dated 20(h January, 1978 whereby the property belonging to the petitioner was sought to be sold by auction for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 6,820/- being the arrears of wages payable to Respondent No. 3 in enforcement of the award of the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act The petitioner's case is that the recovery is sought against the personal property of the petitioner although the respondent No. 3 was an employee of the establishment called 'Manoj Printery' which was owned by the wife of the petitioner Chandrikaben Ravjibhai Patel. The petitioner claimed that he had nothing to do with the ownership of the Printery and that his wife was the whole owner and hence the award can be only satisfied against the property of the said wife. Mr. K.L. Abichandani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner's wife Chandrikaben being the owner of the said Printery was held liable for cert...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Guj)68; [1985]151ITR255(Guj)
Talati, J. 1. The question which is required to be decided in this reference is as to whether the income of the Gujarat Industrial DevelopmentCorporation, Ahmedabad, is exempt either under Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India or is exempt from payment of income-tax under the provisions of Section 10(20A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. These questions arose because the Corporation, in the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, filed three returns disclosing their income as nil, claiming to be exempt under Section 10(20A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and also under Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India.2. The ITO considered the matter and both the (grounds of) claim were rejected. The matter was carried in appeal and the AAC came to the conclusion that the Corporation was an agent of the State Government and, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, the Corporation was entitled to exemption. It was further held that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnagar Salt and Industrial Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj21
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The appellant entered into an agreement with the then State of Bhavnagar in 1944 for manufacture' sale and export of salt in and from the territories of Bhavnagar. As a part of the said agreement, the State of Bhavnagar had provided railway siding facilities to the appellant. The appellant had to pay freight charges for haulage of goods from the appellants siding to the concrete jetty and also the charges for placement of wagons. After the merger of the Bhavnagar State, the western railways revised shifting charges with effect from 1-8-1955 and placement charges with effect from 1-7-1955. The said upward revision of charges was challenged by the appellant by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 553 1957 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhavanagar on the ground that the western railways had no power or authority to unilaterally alter the rates of shifting charges beyond the extent provided by the contract. A declaration to that effect was sought fo...
Tag this Judgment!Pranshankar Shankarlal Joshi and ors. Vs. Fulsinhji Kesharisinhji Parm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj9
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. In this reference, a question of far-reaching importance as to the interpretation of a proviso to S. 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, arises for consideration. The question which is referred to this Bench is whether an appeal would lie against the determination of any question contemplated under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. in execution proceedings for enforcing decrees and orders under the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) and the Rules made thereunder.2. The relations of landlord and tenant are covered by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Chap.-V, Ss. 105 to 117. But the provisions were found inadequate to meet the situation created by acute shortage of housing accommodation. Therefore, Rent (War Restriction) Act 2 of 1918 was the first enactment brought into force for controlling the rent and housing accommodation. It came into force in the Bombay Presidency ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukantaben Nagindas Sheth Vs. Arvindlal Kantilal and Co. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1169
R.J. Shah, J.1. This appeal from order arises at the instance of the original plaintiff who has challenged the order dated 21st October, 1980 passed below Exhs. 9 and 13 in Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 1979 by second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Godhra wherein the above applications preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be stayed.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be necessary to State a few relevant facts. The plaintiff is the widow of one Nagindas Kalidas Sheth who' expired on 12th November, 1978. The deceased husband of the plaintiff was a party to the deed of partnership dated 13th December, 1977 of the firm which was carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs Arvindlal Kantilal and Co. The plaintiff claims that she is the sole heir of the deceased. The plaintiff has alleged that when her husband expired he had as deposit an amount of more than Rs. 1 lakh in the said f...
Tag this Judgment!Madanmohan Kishanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii, Ahmed ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1984
Reported in: [1985]151ITR746(Guj)
Talati J.1. This court is called upon to express an opinion on two questions which are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and they are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sushiladevi, wife of Natwerlal Kabra, first cousin of partner Govinddas, was directly or indirectly connected with the assessee-firm and, therefore, the transactions with her would come within the purview of section 52(1) of the Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transactions with Gayatridevi, Keshardevi, Sushiladevi and Govindlal were made with the object of avoiding or reducing the liability of the assessee-firm under section 45 of the Act and that they were hit by section 52(1) of the Act ?' 2. It is required to be stated that the assessment year is 1965-66 and the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of five partners, viz., Goverdhandas, Gh...
Tag this Judgment!Kaviraj Ramlal Chaturbhuj Vs. Prant Officer, Dahod Prant and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1477
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which in substance is one under Article 227 thereof, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Prant Officer, Dohad in Private Forest Acquisition Case No. 6 of 1974 and as confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in TEN. A. A. 264 of 1976. By the impugned orders, the petitioner's claim for compensation for acquisition of trees situated in the private forest belonging to the petitioners which came to be acquired under the provisions of the Gujarat Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the. 'the Acquisition Act' came to be rejected by both the aforesaid authorities.2. In order to highlight the grievance of the petitioners, a few relevant facts which emerge well established on the record of this case deserve to be noted at the outset. The petitioners were proprietary Jagirdars of village Taladara situated in Santrampur taluka of Panchmahals district. In this village are ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Silk Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR474(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-firm by this petition moves this court for an appropriate writ, order and direction to quash and set aside the reassessment order dated March 31, 1980, passed by the ITO, Surat, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76. A few facts need be notice in order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned assessment. 2. The petitioner-firm made a return of Rs. 61,460 for the assessment year 1975-76 to which the statement of total income was annexed. At the end of the said statement, three notes were appended, one of which was to the effect that the assessee had purchased automatic printing machinery in the year of account corresponding to the assessment year in question, and that it worked the said machinery for some time in the said period and the petitioner-firm had claim development rebate, depreciation, extra shift allowance on the cost of said machinery. It appears that the petitioners has also furnished along with the profit and loss account which it had file...
Tag this Judgment!Jivraj Jutha Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj127; (1984)2GLR435
ORDER1. these two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raise a short but an interesting question regarding right of a tenant-deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (here in after called 'the Tenancy Act') to be offered, for purchase under section 32P(2)(c) that very portion of land held by him asm4enant on the tiles day, the deemed purchase of which had become inoperative under the provisions of section 32E of the Tenancy Act.2. In order to highlight the question involve in these petitions, a few relevant facts may be noted at the outset. The petitioners in both these petitions were lawful tenants of certain agricultural lands situated in village Dungri-Mithapur in Dhari taluka of Amelia district. Under the provisions of section 32 of the Tenancy Act, they became deemed purchasers of these lands. In proceedings under section 32G of the Tenancy Act, for fixation of purchase price in favour of the petitioners, it was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »