Gujarat Court March 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gulam Kadar Gulam Ahmed Multani Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1042
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Criminal Application is filed to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the order of externment and confirmation which is at Annexure 'B' & 'C' of this petition. The authority concerned issued show cause notice under Section 57(c) of the Bombay Police Act alleging that the petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment in three prohibition cases on 4-3-1987, 9-7-1987 and 4-11-1987 respectively. Those are all offences under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Prohibition Act. The imprisonment is also for a period of one day, one day and till rising of the Court. The fine is also Rs. 120/-, 100/- and 150/- respectively for the above said cases. On these facts, the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Surat City and in that it is observed as follows:Since you are sentenced to imprisonment in three offences as mentioned above Under Bombay Prohibition Act during the year 1987 and again you ar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harshvadan Mangaldas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: [1992]194ITR136(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue poses for our consideration the following three questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that, at the end of the partitions, dated December 28, 1964, December 29, 1967, March 26, 1971 and March 9, 1972, there survived a Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his daughter (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the movable and immovable properties that, as a result of the said partitions, fall to the share of the assessee constituted not his separate property but the joint property of the said Hindu undivided family (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income earned from the aforesaid properties during the year under consideration was taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family comprised of the assessee and his daughter ?' which have been...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Niranjan Narottam
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Guj)220; [1988]173ITR693(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee is an individual. He owns a bungalow known as 'Shalimar' situate in Shahibag, Ahmedabad. The assessee disclosed the value of the bungalow at Rs. 3,95,260 in this return of wealth for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee contended before the Wealth-tax Officer that the bungalow which was exclusively used by him for residential purpose throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation date, that is March 31, 1975, which is relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, should be valued as provided in section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee contended that the value of the bungalow on the valuation date relevant to the assessment year 1971-72, that is March 31, 1971, should be adopted as its value on the valuation date, March 31, 1975. The Wealth-tax Officer however, rejected the assessee's contention and valued the bungalow at Rs. 15,48,600 for the assessment year 1975-76. We are not concerned with the other assets of t...
Rajgor Shantilal Shivji Vs. the Trustees of Jivibai Alias Mongibai Wil ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj57; (1988)2GLR802
ORDER1. The petitioner submitted an application for fixation of standard rent of the premises in his possession asserting his right as tenant, but the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Trustees of Jivibai alias Mongibai Will Trust denied the relationship of tenant and landlord and contended that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises consisting of one room for sometime prior to the date of service of notice to the petitioner as the petitioner is the son of the pujari of the temple who is also occupying certain portion of the building. As the dispute was about the relationship of tenant and landlord, the learned trial Judge raised issue and the parties led the evidence before the Trial Court. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge held the petitioner as tenant, but the learned District Judge in appeal did not agree with that finding observing it to be perverse and not according to law and allowed the revision application holding that the petitione...
Kantilal Hargovandas @ Sadhu Ramdasji Guru Ramsevakdas Vs. Maniramdasj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR816
A.P. Ravani, J.1. What is rejected by the trial Court? Is it an application for permitting to file counter-claim under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code or an application for inserting amendment in a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code? Answer to this question will determine the fate of this revision application.2. Respondent No. 1 filed Miscellaneous Application and prayed that he be granted probate and or letters of administration with Will annexed, in respect of Will dated December 5, 1979 executed by deceased Shri Ramanand Sadhu. The application was contested by the petitioner herein and by respondent No. 2. Hence the application was converted into suit as per order dated July 3, 1980 and it has been numbered as Civil Suit No. 2096 of 1980. The petitioner filed his written statement and disclosed his defence on March 12, 1981. Thereafter the trial Court framed issues and proceeded to record evidence of the parties. Examina...
Fatehmohmod Aliyasbhai Samanti Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR981
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 3rd September, 1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Banaskantha District at Palanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1984, the petitioner-accused has filed this revision application.2. It was the prosecution case that the petitioner was driving one bus belonging to the Agricultural University, Dantiwada, on 9-9-1981 at about 7-30 p.m. He was going from Palanpur to Dantiwada. When he came near village Chadotar on the Highway, two persons were found walking ahead of him on the edge of the tar road. It is the prosecution version that he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. He knocked down one person named Vaghari Ujambhai Punjabhai who died on the spot. The complaint was filed by Virabhai Mohanbhai at about 8-30 a. m. at the police station. After die investigation the accused was charge-sheeted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur. The case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palanpur. Af...
Chemicals and Allied Products Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1064
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. This O. J. appeal is against the order passed by the learned single judge of this court in Company Application No. 29 of 1988 inasmuch as by the said order, the learned single judge has given certain directions, which are as follows :(1) It is directed that fresh advertisement in the Times of India and Gujarat Samachar, Ahmedabad edition, should be given inviting members of the public to offer their bids on the same terms and conditions on which the offers were invited earlier.(2) In the fresh advertisement, it shall be stated that offer should not be for an amount less than Rs. 13,25,000.(3) After the offers are received, the provisional liquidator will open the sealed covers in the court and seek further directions with respect to confirmation of sale. It is made clear that it will be open to this court to accept that offer which this court finds to be most advantageous and it will not be open to anyone to claim that because his offer is the highest, it m...
Dhanjibhai Desaibhai and ors. Vs. Bhatt Nayankwnar Natwarlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj34; (1988)2GLR954
ORDER1. This Special Civil Application is directed against the order by the Government of Gujarat refusing to revoke the certificate granted under S. 88-C, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (to be referred as BT & At Act) and dismissing the application under S. 88-D BT & AL Act, holding that the petitioner tenant has ailed to establish that the annual income of the respondent I. landlord is more than Rs. 1500/ -.2. The respondent No. I is the occupant of survey Nos. 1944, 1940, 1114 Paiki, 1113 situated at Borsad and survey No. 314/1 situated at Vehera, the total area of which is 14 Acres and 13 Gunthas. In an application dt. Oct. 12, 1965 under S. 88-C BT & AL Act the Mamlatdar, Borsad, granted the certificate on Feb. 28; 1969 under the said provision. Under S. 88-C BT & AL Act, the occupant of the land is required to submit an application to the Mamlatdar within the prescribed period for a certificate that he is entitled to the exemption and the Mamlatdar on holding that the ...
Mihir Textiles Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC214; 1988(18)LC164(Gujarat); 1989(40)ELT28(Guj); (1988)1GLR654
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. We had heard these petitions at length and we had indicated to the learned advocates that we would dispose of these petitions as finally heard. At this time Mrs. Mehta and Mr. J. D. Ajmera had stated that they would waive service of rule on behalf of the respondents and the Court may dispose of the petitions finally. Accordingly we issue rule. Mrs. Mehta and Mr. Ajmera waive service of rule in each petition and we now proceed to dispose of the petitions on merits. 2. In this batch of petitions the petitioner-Companies are engaged in the manufacture and production of cotton and man-made fabrics covered under Chapters 52, 53 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Tariff Act'). These manufacturing concerns have taken out L-IV licences under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the 1944 Act') read with the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the rules') framed thereunder. According to the petitioners...
Maheshwari Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: 1989(22)LC110(Gujarat); 1988(35)ELT252(Guj)
A.H. Ahmadi, J.1.We had heard these petitions at length and we had indicated to the learned advocates that we would dispose of these petitions as finally heard. At that time Mrs. Mehta and Mr. J.D. Ahmera had stated that they would waive service of rule on behalf of the respondents and the Court may dispose of the petitions finally. Accordingly we issue rule. Mrs. Mehta and Mr. Ajmera waive service of rule in each petition and we now proceed to dispose of the petitions on merits.2. In this batch of petitions the petitioner-Companies are engaged in the manufacture and production of cotton and man-made fabrics covered under Chapters -52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Tariff Act). These manufacturing concerns have taken out L-IV licences under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the 1944 Act') read with the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed thereunder. According to the petitioners, even tho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »