Gujarat Court June 1991 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Bhayalal Jadavji and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1991
Reported in: (1993)1GLR350
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant State has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 1976 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Bhavnagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 71 of 1971.A resume of material facts giving rise to the present appeal, may be narrated, so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal.2. The present respondent is the original plaintiff and the present appellant is the original defendant and, they are hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' for the sake of convenience and brevity.3. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm which was given a contract for the construction of road and railway, siding road, Akwada Creek, Near Port, Bhavnagar. The defendant had accepted the tender of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was accordingly informed on 4th January, 1965. The plaintiff thereafter deposited the security deposit in connection with the aforesaid work. Initially, the security of Rs. 6,602/- was given by the plaintiff an...
Tag this Judgment!Brooke Bond India Limited Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR1225
S.D. Dave, J.1. A set of questions referred to us runs thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the chicory roots, purchased by the applicant, were not covered either under entry 8 or under entry 23 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the agreement between the applicant and the farmers was not a contract of work and labour of growing chicory roots but was an agreement of sale and purchase of chicory roots ?' 2. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred to this Court the abovesaid two questions at the instance of the assessee, acting under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. 3. The assessee, M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd., is a public limited company having its registered office situated at Calcutta and the main office in Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessee-company has got a ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Kathi Malsiya Vaghe
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj79
Jani, J.1. Sixteen First Appeals Nos.994/82 to 1008/82 and No. 1015/82 under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the State of Gujarat arise from a common judgment and different awards delivered by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh, in 16 Land Reference Cases Nos. 18/80, 19/80, 13/81, 14/81, 15/81, 12/81, 2/81, 3/81, 4/81, 5/81, 6/81, 7/81, 8/81, 9/81, 10/81 and 11/81 respectively. in respect of acquisition of different parcels of agricultural lands of village Malenka, in Mendarda Taluka of Junagadh District, acquired for the purpose of construction of Madhuvanti Dam under the Irrigation Scheme. The remaining four appeals have been filed by the original claimants against the awards made in Land Reference Cases Nos. 5181, 19/ 80, 12/ 81 and 4/ 8 1. The claimants have also filed cross-objections in the First Appeals No.994/82, 998/82, 1007/82, 1003/82 and 10017/82 filed by the State against those awards made in Land Reference Cases in which the claimants hav...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Society Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC273; 1994(70)ELT556(Guj); (1992)1GLR246
Majumdar, J. 1. In this petition, Mr. B. B. Naik appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates of the parties. Rule is heard today. 2. The short question involved in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is regarding granting of relief of issuing a writ of certiorary for quashing and setting aside the order of revisional authority at Annexure E dated 20-7-1981 in so far as it has failed to extend the time in respect of claim covered by the show cause notice covering the period spread over September covered by the show cause notice covering the period spread over September 1976. It is the revisional order on the basis of which the Assistant Collector passed a consequential order at Annexure F by which he has reiterated the demand of duty to the turn of Rs. 5,93,321.75. If the revision order which is the basis of the later order of the Assistant Collector falls through in this connection, the consequential order at Annexure F...
Tag this Judgment!C.M.C. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT11(Guj)
Majmudar, J.1. In this petition, a short but an interesting question arises for our consideration. It is to the effect as to whether an exemption notification issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('the Rules' for short) in connection with synthetic organic dyes ('S.O. dyes' for short) manufactured by the petitioner has got stultified on account of operation of the provisions of Rule 56A of the rules. In order to appreciate this controversy, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act as a private limited company. It is engaged in the manufacture of S.O. Dyes falling under T.I. 14D of the First Schedule to the Act as was applicable at the relevant time. The petitioner was utilising duty paid dye-intermediates falling under T.1. 68 of the Schedule as basic raw material of both the kinds viz. imported as well as indigenous in the manufacture of the aforesaid dyes. We are told that now the petitioner has d...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR1354; (1992)IILLJ486Guj
Majumdar, J.1. The petitioner-Union which is a registered Trade Union of employees working under respondent No. 2 - Company has brought in challenge in the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the order at Annexure 'A' passed by respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat in Labor and Employment Department on November 22, 1990 refusing to refer industrial disputes raised by the petitioner-Union for adjudication of the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). 2. In order to appreciate the grievances of the petitioner-Union against the impugned order, a few relevant facts leading to this petition deserve to be noted at the outset. 3. Introductory facts : The petitioner-Union has filed this petition on behalf of 579 workmen who are said to be members of the petitioner-Union. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are treated to be workmen of labour contractors. These labour contractors are joined as respondents Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (Decd.) Through His Legal Heirs Vedubhai Shanker ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR157
S.D. Shah, J.1. These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raise common questions of law and arc based on almost identical facts. Petitioners in both these petitions are also common and since the questions of law raised are common and facts giving rise to the present proceedings are also, more or less, common, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In these petitions heirs of one Shankarbhai Kanjibhai are the petitioners. The petitions are directed against the common judgment and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Applications Nos. 47 and 48 of 1979 dated 11-4-1980 confirming the judgment and order of the Deputy Collector, Vyara.3. One Kanji Ganesh cultivated two parcels of lands, one being S. No. 105 admeasuring 13 Acres and 38 Gunthas situated at Velad village, Surat District and another being S. No. 57, admeasuring 13 Acres and 38 Gunthas situated at village Mubarakpura, District Surat Said Kanjibhai Ganesh died on 4th ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arun Textile c
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(Guj)117; [1991]192ITR700(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The assessee-firm in the original return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 filed on June 14, 1973, had claimed depreciation on machinery of Rs. 53,057. In its revised return filed on March 13, 1975, the said claim of depreciation was withdrawn. The Income-tax Officer had, under an assessment order made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while noticing that in the revised return of income the assessee had not claimed depreciation, allowed the depreciation which was claimed in the original return on the ground that it was not necessary for allowing the depreciation that the factory should work full-fledged and further that the assessee had provided for the depreciation in the account books. The assessee challenged this order in appeal on the ground that it was open to the assessee not to claim the deduction and since the deduction was not claimed in the revised return, there was no occasion for the Income-tax Officer to allow the same. The Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR633(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai entered into an agreement dated December 28, 1961, with Messrs. Machinefabriek Reineveld, a company incorporated in Holland with limited liability ('foreign company' for short), under which the foreign company agreed to place at the disposal of the limited liability company, which Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai intended to incorporate in India all the present and future know-how, the use of patents and all technical details with complete workshop drawings for manufacture of their engineering products, on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Such technical collaboration was for a period of ten years from the date of incorporation of the said limited liability company or from the date effective steps were taken in execution of the agreement, whichever was later. It was provided in the agreement that, notwithstanding the expiry of the agreement, after the stipulated period of ten years, th...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswantrai P. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR577(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is 1974-75, the year of account being S. Y. 2029, which ended on October 26, 1973. The assessee, as karta of his Hindu undivided family, is a partner in Messrs. C. Prabhudas and Co., a partnership firm. The assessee has an account with the firm of C. Prabhudas and Co. in his individual capacity also. He had borrowed money from C. Prabhudas and Co., and invested the borrowed money in purchase of shares. The assessee's major investments are in Polysteels (India) Limited and Polygas Limited. According to the Income-tax Officer, the investments are made in the said companies for controlling the affairs of the company rather than for earning income as envisaged under section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In Polysteels (India) Limited, other members of the assessee's family, namely, his wife, brother, brother's wife, mother and other private limited companies in which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »