Gujarat Court February 1986 Judgments
Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Guj)151; [1986]162ITR800(Guj)
R. C. MANKAD J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal 'for short), Ahmedabad Bench, has referred to us two questions at the instance of the assessee and four questions at the instance of the Revenue for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They are as under :At the instance of the assessee :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to proportionate export rebate on qualifying income as per sub-rules(3) and (4) of rule 2 of the Income-tax years 1966-67 and 1967-68)(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 52,555.50 incurred towards issue of bonus shares by the assessee holding the same as expenditure of capital nature ?'At the instance of the Revenue :'(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the figure arrived at by computation under rule 19(5) was ...
Tag this Judgment!Amri Naran W/O Naran Kara and anr. Vs. Saukem Emp. Co. Op. Society Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1987ACJ451; [1987(54)FLR130]; (1986)2GLR1221; (1993)IIILLJ92Guj
Ravani, J. 1. While in employment with the respondent Co-operative Society, deceased workman Naran Kara died. According to the appellants, 'the workman died due to an injury on account of the accident which arose' out of and during the course of employment. As the respondent Society did not need to the request made by the applicants for payment of compensation, they filed an application for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The application has been dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). Hence this appeal.2. The deceased workman was in the employment of the respondent Society. His work was to look after the buffaloes and to milk the buffaloes which were being kept in the Dairy Farm of the respondent-Society. In the early morning of January 15, 1981, when the deceased workman had gone to the Dairy Farm to attend to his duties, he stumbled down...
Tag this Judgment!Yamuna Engineering Co. Vs. Bank of Baroda and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR878
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioner instituted a Suit No. 274 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baroda, for an injunction to restrain Jyoti Limited from demanding payment from the Bank of Baroda under a guarantee given by the plaintiff in respect of the transactions in question. Briefly stated, the facts are as under.2. The plaintiff and Messrs Jyoti Limited entered into a contract dated 9th May 1974 for the manufacture and supply of valves suitable for electrical operations on the terms and conditions set out therein. Under the terms of the contract, Messrs Jyoti Limited agreed to pay 25 per cent of the price as advance payment amounting to Rs. 4,47,680/-for which the plaintiff gave a bank guarantee. The terms of the bank guarantee are 'Bank hereby agrees unequivocally and unconditionally to pay within 48 hours on demand in writing from Messrs Jyoti Limited and sum upto and not exceeding the amount mentioned.' On the strength of this bank guarantee advance...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Hussainmiya Chandmiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR100]; (1986)2GLR1143; (1994)IIILLJ844Guj
Ahmadi, J.1. We are distressed to find that the Labour Court has by its award dated 23rd August 1984 ordered the reinstatement of the workman in exercise of power conferred upon it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the name of social justice and fairplay, the Labour Court has, shown misplaced sympathy for a workman who duped several innocent and poor persons in the name of procuring for them residential accommodation. The power under Section 11-A of the Act can be exercised in a case where it is found on facts that the dismissal or discharge of a workman is not justified. But in a case where no other order than the order of dismissal can be made on the proved facts, the arbitrary exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act cannot be overlooked.2. The facts necessary to be stated are that at the relevant point of time the workman Hussainmiya Chandmiya was working as a watchman in the Rabari Vasahat, Odhav, of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation when his ser...
Tag this Judgment!Harijan Govind Jadav Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR216
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Little concern for the liberty of a citizen together with lack of awareness of its obligation arising out of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution resulting in a mechanical rejection of the detenu's representation by the Government compels us to quash the order of his detention and bring his detention to an end.2. The petitioner is detained pursuant to the order dated 8-8-1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order was passed against him on the ground that he is a notorious bootlegger and that because of his activities of manufacturing and selling illicit liquor, public order in the locality of Vankarvas of Vanthali town is adversely affected. The District Magistrate was also satisfied that inspite of so many cases registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act, he was still continuing his said prejudicial act...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Guj)114; [1986]160ITR15(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Ahmedabad Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no single receipt which could be said to reflect only the gains of devaluation and, as such, the substantive part of section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not attracted 2. Whether. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 1,01,572 arose out of business transaction and hence the element of casualness was totally absent 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the total receipts in the hands of the assessee amounted to sale price arising out of trading activity ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhod Ramji Machi Vs. B.J. Gadhvi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1829; (1987)1GLR1
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This is a petition to quash and set aside the impugned notice at annexure 'A' and the impugned orders at annexure 'B' passed by respondent No. 1 and confirmed in appeal by respondent No. 2 at annexure 'C'. The petition further prays for a declaration that provisions of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India and, therefore, they have to be struck down.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is involved in offences in which force and violence were used punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, that the petitioner is moving with his associates with dangerous weapons like axe, iron-bars etc; that he is robbing the money and the valuables from the innocent persons passing on the road at the point of knife by giving threat of violence and giving threat to kidnap them; that he is involved in the offences using force and violence punishable under Sections 326, 114,...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1038; (1987)ILLJ386Guj
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner in this Special Civil Application has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order of transfer of the petitioners as contained in the entry at Annexure 'A' to the Special Civil Application. The learned Single Judge before whom this Special Civil Application was placed for admission has referred the matter to the Division Bench in order to decide the question of jurisdiction involved in this case. 2. After the constitution of the Administrative Tribunal for Central Government Staff by virtue of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is felt whether the petitioner herein is a railway servant or a servant belonging to the Armed Force of the Union. If the petitioner belongs to the Railway Protection Force coming under the Indian Railways Act, 1890, naturally, the matter has to be placed before the Administrative Tribunal constituted for the purpose of dealing with the disputes regarding the Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!AshwIn H. Acharya Vs. Ram Dugdhalaya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1218
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner filed Criminal Case No. 566 of 1982 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Rajkot against opponents No. 1 to 3, alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On 28-12-1983, the accused gave application Exh. 46 for discharging them without framing a charge, on the ground that the complainant not being a qualified Food Inspector, all the actions taken by him including filing of the complaint were without the authority of law. The learned Magistrate agreed with the said contention, and discharged the accused. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant has filed this revision application.2. What is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is erroneous as the evidence on record clearly shows that the complainant possessed the require...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Mamad Mithani and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC318; (1986)2GLR1380
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of the find of contraband goods from a mechanised vessel 'Umed-Pasa' MN V 120 which was intercepted on 10th February, 1985 near Piroton Island off the coast of Jamnagar. The vessel was tindalled by Daud Mamad Mithani and had as many as fifteen crew men on board at the time of its interception. The registered owner of the vessel was one Aminabibi, the maternal aunt of the tindal Daud. The said vessel left Dubai with a cargo of wet dates on 5th February, 1985 which it was expected to unload at Jamnagar. The officers of the Customs Department received intelligence reports on 9th February, 1985 that the said vessel tindalled by Daud was carrying contraband gold and other articles in secret cavities specially prepared for that purpose and was likely to touch either Jamnagar or Porbandar port for shedding the same. On receipt of this information, field formations were alerted to intensify sea patrolling and the intercept the vessel. 'Al-Rafiqu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »