Gujarat Court October 1993 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.
Karamsinh V. Rabari and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1788
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by petitioner No. 1 - Agricultural Assistant working in the office of the Director of Agriculture, respondent No. 3 herein and also by petitioner No. 2 - Staff Association of Agriculture Supervisors (Promoted) and Agriculture Assistants Class III (Technical) working in the Gujarat Agriculture University, for appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing the respondents to grant benefit of bunching as provided under Note 3 of Rule 7 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1975 by giving starting pay of Rs. 350/- to Agricultural Assistants who are Diploma Holders in the revised pay scale of Rs. 330-560 and to grant increments on that basis and also by directing the respondent authorities to give all consequential benefits including arrears of pay which may be due and payable to them in accordance with the said fixation.2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is working as Agricultural Assistant in the Direct...
Punambhai Madhabhai Parmar and anr. Vs. Bhupat Devsinhbhai Barot and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR746
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners who are elected members of the Respondent No. 4-Tarapur Nagar Panchayat, have filed this petition challenging the Resolution No. 365 passed by the respondent No. 4-Panchayat on 25th June, 1993 for giving contract for collection of octroi, to the respondent No. 3.2. It appears that a previous contract for collection of octroi which was given by the Panchayat under Section 180 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), had expired ,on 26th October, 1992, but it came to be extended by two months with the permission of the District Development Officer. It appears that there was correspondence between the Panchayat and the District Development Officer in connection with the fixing of upset price for the octroi contract to be given for the ensuing period. By letter dated 10th October, 1992 the respondent No. 1 wrote to the District Development Officer seeking permission for the Nagar Panchayat to give private contract fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shreno Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR289(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two question for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the conditions in section 40A(7)(b) were complied with and, consequently, the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of the provision of Rs. 62,660 for payment of gratuity as claimed 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of an amount of Rs. 62,660 being future liability for payment of gratuity under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while computing the gains and profits of the business ?' 2. The aforesaid questions of law arise in background of the following facts : The assessment of the assessee-company pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74 was completed by the Income-tax Officer as per his order date...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panachand Khemchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR1053(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following two questions for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the loss of Rs. 36,192 was not a loss from speculative business as only one single transaction was involved? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to set off of loss of Rs. 36,192 against profit of business which was not of speculative nature?' 2. These questions arise in the background of the fact that the assessee, Messrs. Panachand Khemchand, submitted its income-tax return for the assessment year 1975-76 and on scrutiny of the return, the Income-tax Officer held as under : 'On scrutiny of the books of account it is noticed that the firm has claimed a loss of Rs. 36,192. In this connection, details as to how th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Yamuna Mills Company Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Reported in: [1995]215ITR153(Guj)
M.B. Shah J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal', for short) has referred the following questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to allow the deduction of Rs. 20,00,000 being the amount transferred to the gratuity fund approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax as against Rs. 2,73,711 allowed by the Income-tax Officer 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to the allowance of Rs. 20,88,000 being the actual amount transferred to the fund approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax or for an amount of Rs. 2,73,711 being the liability for the calendar year 1973 according to the actuarial valuation report 3. Whether on a plain reading of section 155(13) read with section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, past liability in respect of provision for gratuity has to be taken into acc...
Champaklal Chhotalal and anr. Vs. Parvatiben Kuberbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: AIR1995Guj12; (1994)1GLR713
ORDERB.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is filed by the defendants against the opponent-plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the tenants being Civil Suit No. 80 of 1973 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Surat which was, on the formation of the Small Cause Court, numbered as Small Cause Case No. 1309 of 1975. The suit was filed against the tenants under the Bombay Rent Act under Section 13(1)(A) and (L). The plaintiffs suit for the possession of the suit premises was dismissed but a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 33/- from the defendant No. 1. Against the said decree the plaintiff filed the appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 303 of 1977 and the said appeal has been decided by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surat, on 5th April, 1980 by allowing the appeal. The judgment and the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside and the suit, of the plaintiff-appellant for possess...
State of Gujarat Vs. Harishbhai Veljibhai Thakker and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR404
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. What indeed would be the appropriate forum to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused under the Factories Act, 1948, - 'whether the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or Court of the learned Magistrate First Class, wherein in cases the complainant while specifically alleging contravention of certain provisions of the Act as well as Rules made thereunder, also alleges that the accused was previously found to have been convicted and sentenced for the contravention of very same provision and that repetition of such offence invities punishment under Section 94 of the said Act, which provides over and above other things, imposition of fine of not less than ten thousand rupees, etc. etc.'? This in short is the question which has arisen for consideration in this appeal in the back-drop of following facts and circumstances.2. According to Mr. D.M. Daberiya, Factory Inspector, Vadodara, on 21-7-1989, when he visited the factory, viz., 'Duck Lami Plast' situat...
State of Gujarat Vs. Mit and Mir Private Ltd., Surat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1684
Vaidya, J.1. This group of 12 Criminal Revision Applications is directed against the impugned judgments and order - all dated 20-5-1985, rendered in as many criminal cases, by the learned J. M. F. C. Surat, wherein the respondent - Navin F. Zaveri, owner of 'Mit & Mir Private Limited, 'Surat, who came to be prosecuted for the alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 [for short 'the Act'] and the Rules made thereunder, under the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963, punishable under Section 92 of the said Act, [as alleged in detail in 12 complaints] was ordered to be discharged on the short ground that the complaints were filed beyond the time limit of 3 months as prescribed under Section 106 of the said Act. 2. In all these cases, since the facts situation and the law governing the same are by and large common, it is decided to hear and dispose of all of them together by this common judgment. 3. To state view relevant facts as far as they are necessary to decide ...
Jamnaben G. Mistry Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Guj)347; [1994]210ITR50(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The question canvassed at the time of hearing of this matter is limited to what would be the consideration to a purchaser of the property if it is sold in the open market in the context of section 36 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Section 36 provides that the principal value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Controller, 'it would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the deceased's death'. It is contended that a prudent willing purchaser before offering the price would estimate the value of the property by taking into consideration all the relevant factors including the contingent payments which are required to be made to the to the employees such as gratuity, bonus, etc. 2. The question is required to be decided in the context of an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the provision for gratuity is not a debt and, therefore, not deductible under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act. The Tribunal fur...
Maganlal Harjivandas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR114
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Ceiling) at Bharuch ('the first authority' for convenience) on 24th August, 1983 in Ceiling Case No. 7 of 1983 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Assistant Collector at Bharuch on 27th February, 1984 in Ceiling Appeal No. 2 of 1984 as further substantially affirmed in revision by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for convenience) by its decision rendered on 9th October, 1985 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 700 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the first authority declared the petitioner's holding to be in excess of the ceiling area by 43 acres 36 gunthas and in revision the Tribunal found the petitioner's holding to be in excess of tzhe ceiling area by 41 acres 23 guntbas.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was found to be holding certain parcel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »