Gujarat Court February 1992 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.
Prithviraj Dahyabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: (1992)1GLR711
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner who is an original accused has challenged the conviction order passed against him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short hereinafter) and the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default further simple imprisonment for 30 days passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Summary Criminal Case, No. 92 of 1980. and confirmed by the City Sessions Judge, at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1982.2. The resume of the material and relevant facts leading to the rise of the present Revision may, shortly, be stated at this stage.3. The present petitioner who is original accused was running a shop in Raikhad locality, at Ahmedabad, and was, also, dealing with groundnut oil. The petitioner was doing business in the name of 'Kailas Kirana Store'. The Food Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, opponent No. 2, original complainant, inspected the Kira...
Starlight Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC127
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing textured crimped yarn which was covered by tariff Item 18-II(i)(b) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it was in force at the relevant time. In view of the notification No. 55/78 dated March 1, 1978 issued by the Central Government, the petitioner was liable to pay the duty leviable on the base yarn if not already paid plus Rs.5/- per kilogram. However, if the duty was paid on the base yarn, then the petitioner would be liable to pay Rs.5 per kilogram if the petitioner produced the proof of payment of duty in respect of base yarn.2. As per Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules if the goods were manufactured out of certain materials or components on which duty was paid and the finished goods were also excisable, the procedure of giving pro forma credit for duty paid on materials or components was made available by maintaining account in form RG 23 parts...
Gopalkrishna Mitharam Chandnani and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Road Trans. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ846
S.M. Soni, J.1. [His Lordship stated the facts and observed:]xxx xxx xxx6. Mr. M.D. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondents, has supported the judgment of the Tribunal. Mr. M.D. Pandya further contended that if this court is going to enhance the amount of compensation, then under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, he has a right to support the judgment by challenging contentions which are decided against him by the learned Tribunal. By this submission, Mr. Pandya wants to raise a contention of contributory negligence. Mr. Pandya contended that the accident did not take place solely because of the negligence of the S.T. driver, but it was the scooterist who has also contributed for the occurrence of the accident. Mr Pandya contended that though the specific plea of contributory negligence is not raised before the Tribunal, the same is covered under the plea of no negligence on their part and negligence of the scooterist. Mr. Pandya, therefore, co...
Gopalkishna Mitharam Chandnani and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Road Transpo ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: II(1994)ACC227
S.M. Soni, J.1. His Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed:. ... ... ... ...6. Mr. M.D. Pandya, learned Advocate for the respondents has supported the judgment of the Tribunal. Mr. Pandya further contended that if this Court is going to enhance the amount of compensation, then under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, he has a right to support the judgment by challenging contentions which are decided against him by the learned Tribunal. By this submission, Mr. Pandya wants to raise a contention of contributory negligence. Mr. Pandya contended that the accident did not take place solely because of the negligence of the S.T. driver, but it was the scooterist who has contributed for the occurrence of the accident. Mr. Pandya contended that though the specific plea of contributory negligence is not raised before the Tribunal, the same is covered under the plea of no negligence on their part and negligence of the scooterist. Mr Pandya, t...
Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)1GLR503
S.B. Majmudar, Acting C.J.1. In this group of petitions, vires of Section 7A and Section 6(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ('the Act' for short) as applicable to the State of Gujarat have been brought in challenge. Alongwith the said challenge are raised alternative contentions centering round applicability of the said provisions to the four Municipal Corporations functioning under the Act. At the admission stage of these petitions, by consent of parties, petitions were treated as admitted and were heard finally.2. In order to appreciate the contours of controversy centering round these questions, it is necessary to glance through a few background facts.3. Background Facts: Four municial corporations concerned in these petitions are: (1) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (2) Surat Municipal Corporation, (3) Baroda Municipal Corporation, and (4) Rajkot Municipal Corporation. They were reconstituted in the year 1987 under the provisions of the Act. As per Sect...
Saurashtra Paper and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR871; (1995)IIILLJ540Guj
Panchal, J.1. In both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who manufacture Millboard by sundry process, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 2nd July, 1979 (Annexure 'D' to the petition) issued by the Government of Gujarat in its Labour, Social Welfare and Tribal Development Department, in exercise of powers conferred on it by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 5 and Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of employees employed in the scheduled employment known 'as Employment in any Pulp and Paper or Board Manufactory' with effect from 15th July, 1979.2. As both these petitions involve common question of facts and law, with the consent of the learned Advocates, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Keshavlal Maganbhai Jogani and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ248; (1992)2GLR882
M.S. Parikh, J.1. This appeal by the appellant-State of Gujarat arises out of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28-3-1983 in Criminal Case No. 4604 of 1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad at Navsari acquitting the present respondents (original accused) of the offences punishable under Sections 332, 342 read with Section 109 in the alternative 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'. The appeal was admitted after the leave was granted and it was placed for final hearing before this Court.2. The facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated below:One Mr. Naginbhai Nathubhai Patel (complainant) happened to be the Inspector under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. One Mr. Sureshchandra Kripashankar Pandya was the District Registrar under the said Act. Mr. Krushnalal Sitaram Shah was working as the Head Clerk in the office of the Registrar, Co-operatie Societies at the relevant point of time. On 13th October, 1982 the complai...
Thakore Laxmanji @ Angi Rajuji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR523
K.J. Vaidya, J. 1. The petitioner Thakore Laxmanji alias Angi Rajuji, who came to be arrested on 30-9-1991 alongwith three other accused persons in connection with C.R. No. 147 of 1991, for causing injuries to one Makwana Jagdish Shankar for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 114 of the I.P.C., Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and Section 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has by this Misc. Criminal Application moved this Court for getting himself released on bail challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 8-10-1991 rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 36 of 1991, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, whereby his bail application came to be dismissed.2. Few relevant facts : According to the complainant Makwana Jagdish Shankar, on 19-9-1991, at about 17-30 hours, when he was sitting near 'Manish Pan Centre' chit-chatting with some of his friends, the petitioner alongwith other three ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Heaven Bearing Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR567(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, Actg. C.J.1. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment year under reference is 1975-76. In the course of assessment for the assessment year under reference, the Commissioner of Income-tax, on examination of the record of the assessment proceedings, came to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer had not properly considered the provisions of section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act' for short), and, consequently, granted excessive relief of weighted deduction under the said provision, in respect of staff working in India as well as commission paid to the parties in India. The Commissioner, therefore, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, held that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, set aside the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and directed him to examine whether the assessee's claim in respect of expenditure incurred ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K.S. Shivrajsinhji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Guj)218; [1993]201ITR451(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, Actg. C.J.1. The assessee in an individual and the assessment years under reference are 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,34,967 for the assessment year 1967-68. While determining the above total income, the Income-tax Officer allowed set off the business loss against the income from interest, dividend, property, etc., amounting to Rs. 1,30,947 and deduction to expenses of Rs. 16,283 against the income from interest, dividend, property, etc., amounting, in all, to Rs. 3,10,757. So far as the assessment year 1968-69 is concerned, the Income-tax Officer determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 1,32,827. While determining the said income the Income-tax Officer allowed set off of business loss of Rs. 1,11,334 and deduction of expenses of Rs. 15,574 against the income from dividend. 2. The Income-tax Officer levied surcharge on unearned income of the total income of Rs. 1,34,967 for the assessment years 1967-68...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »