Gujarat Court March 1988 Judgments
Ahmedabad Khangi Prathmik Shala Sanchalak Sangh Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj225; (1989)1GLR1
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 1077 of 1988. In that Special Civil Application, the appellant herein questioned the authority of the Tribunal constituted as early as 23-1-1987, by a Notification issued by virtue of the power conferred under S. 40F introduced by the Bombay Primary Education (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1986. In the Notification dt. 23-1-1987 published by the Government of Gujarat which is annexure 'A' to the special civil Application, it is stated that the tribunal constituted for the purpose of chap VII-A of the above said act shall have jurisdiction in the whole of the state of Gujarat .It has also appointed one Shri Navanitbhai Dhanjibhai Parikh to be the tribunal .On 31st Dec 1987 , another notification was gazetted, stating;'In place of words 'Chap.VII-A' appearing in sub-para 1 of Government Order No. CH/SH/2KHPS/l0W1607/Ch, dt. 23rd Jan. 1987, read the words 'C...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust-no. 2
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Guj)185; [1988]172ITR698(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Four questions have been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. These questions read as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the provisions of section 11 of the Act, do not come in the way of the assessee as the funds were applied to charitable purposes and that application was completed when the funds were donated to other charitable trusts 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act were not applicable in the instant case 4. Whether the Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit D. Padival Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR477
J.P. Desai, J.1. This petition is filed by Mr. A.D. Padival, an Advocate practising in this Court, praying that appropriate writ may be issued directing the respondents to appoint sufficient number of Judges in this Court. The present strength of Judges in this Court is 17 including the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 18 posts of permanent Judges have been sanctioned for this Court and out of them only 17 posts are filled up. Three posts of Additional Judges have been sanctioned but they are not still filled up. Out of 21 sanctioned posts, only 17 posts are filled up and that way, this Court is short of four Judges even as per the sanctioned strength. Two Hon'ble Judges of this Court are retiring-one in the month of July this year and another in the month of October, also this year. If no appointment is made by that time, then the strength of the Judges in this Court will be reduced to 15 by the month of October, 1988. Out of 17 Judges, one Hon'ble Judge is appointed as a Member of the Finance ...
Tag this Judgment!S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Guj)180; [1988]172ITR176(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) has at the instance of the assessee referred to us for our opinion opinion the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that surtax is not deductible while computing the business income ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company and the assessment year under reference is 1971-72. In its appeal against the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee made a claim for deduction of surtax paid by it from its total income. In support of its claim, the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Income-tax Officer, Central Bombay (ITA No. 3068 (Bom)/1972-73). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held that surtax was leviable on chargeable pro...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Silk Weaving Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: [1988]172ITR575(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) has referred to us for our opinion the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that it had disclosed a profit of Rs. 3 lakhs in the first revised return on its own without any inquiry being made by the Income-tax Officer and without any evidence to the contrary adduced by the Department (2) Whether there is any evidence on record to support the finding that the appellant had concealed a profit of Rs. 5,28,547 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was liable to penalty on the estimated profit of Rs. 5,28,547 under the substantive provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act or in the alternative under the Explanation to section 271(1...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay J. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR902
A.P. Ravani, J.1. There is material suppression and deliberate distortion of facts. Even when this is found as a matter of fact and the explanation given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner leads to no other inference but to deliberate distortion of facts and intentional suppression of relevant and important material, would it be proper for the High Court to ignore and/or to condone the same? Or is it incumbent upon the High Court to discharge its duty and pass an order which may appear to be unpleasant to the petitioner, to the petitioner's Advocates and perhaps to many others? In short, there are two alternatives: Pragmatism leading to the glamorous goal of popularity. Or Devotion to duty coupled with allegiance to the oath of office.2. The petitioner is serving as English Section Writer in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C., Visavadar, district Junagadh. He was appointed on November 28, 1983. He alleged in the petition that his services have been terminated with effe...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Parekh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR141; (1989)IILLJ267Guj
ORDER1. The petitioner, who was serving as Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, challenges the legality and validity of the Departmental Inquiry initiated against him. In the Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner it is alleged that while he was discharging his duties as Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal at 'Una' he had decided a case under S. 21 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contrary to the provisions of the Act. The case was that of one Jekunvarji alias Devkunvar Prabhudas of village Bhacha. The same case was decided as per order dt. 25th September 1981 against the provisions of the Act and it was held that the 'Khatedar' was not holding the land in excess of the ceiling limit. By deciding the case in this fashion he benefited the 'Khatedar' and adversely affected the public interest. This conduct of the petitioner exhibited lack of sincerity in performance of duties and, therefore, petitioner was liable for ...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutlal J. Bhatt Vs. State Govt. of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR841; (1989)ILLJ141Guj
1. The petitioner was serving as a Forester in the Forest Department of the State of Gujarat. The respondents wanted to retire the petitioner on this reaching the age of 58 on 30th June 1979, while the contention of the petitioner was that he was governed by the old Rules of Junagadh State and his age of superannuation would be 60 years and 58 years and, therefore, he was entitled to continue in service upto 30th June 1981. The petitioner, on the aforesaid ground, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Junagadh. The said suit was decreed by the trial court on 30th April 1982. The trial court held that the petitioner was entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 60 years and declared that the order dated 4th June 1979 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30th June 1979 was unconstitutional, void and inoperative. Against this judgment of the trial court, the State of Gujarat filed Regular Civil Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Kathiawar Motors Vs. V.T. Shah, Sales Tax Officer No. 2, Division 1, R ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR797; [1988]70STC132(Guj)
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This petition is a vivid illustration of an easily avoidable litigation. Has not the department adopted a course, which is basically unsupportable Has not an honest assessee been driven to file the present petition Would not a proper approach in the matter by the department have saved time and money of all concerned These are some of the questions that need to be examined in the above petition. 2. The basis of the petition is three show cause notices, all dated 25th February, 1970. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of sale, inter alia, of trucks and chassis mostly on hire-purchase basis at Rajkot. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, being registered for selling cars, trucks, motor-cycles, spare parts etc. During the period from 1st January, 1960 to 31st December, 1962, the petitioner had entered into agreement with various parties on hire-purchase systems in respect of trucks chassis. Under this...
Tag this Judgment!Popatlal Vasudev Vyas Vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR895; (1989)ILLJ161Guj
1. The petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis on probation for one year as English Stenographer by an order dated 27th February 1984 on the establishment of respondent No. 1 Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board'). The petitioner's probation period was extended from time to time and ultimately it was extended upto 27th February 1986 by an order dated 6th November 1985. Thereafter, the question whether the probation period should be extended or whether the petitioner should be continued on long term basis or whether the petitioner should be discharged from service was under consideration. In the meantime, the present petition was filed in the month of February 1987 on 20th February 1987. This Court on 23rd February 1987 directed notice pending admission to be issued to the respondents. Thereafter, during the pendency of this petition, the order or termination was passed on 14th December 1987 terminating the services of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »