Gujarat Court June 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.
SahabuddIn Choudhury Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1028Guj
Bhat, C.J.1. The case has been referred to Full Bench in view of the importance of the question involved in the case. Judgment in Civil Rule 3176/91 is challenged in this writ appeal by the writ petitioner.2. Appellant was selected and trained to work as Secretary of Co-operative Societies by Assam Cadre Management Co-operative Society Limited. He was first appointed and posted as Secretary, Ambagaon Samities Society, Nagaon on May 24, 1975. Later he was appointed as Secretary, Kapashbari Samabai Samity Limited. While so, he was placed under suspension by 3rd respondent, Chief Executive Officer of Assam Cadre Management Co-operative Society Limited. Memo of charges dated August 16, 1988 was served on him by the 3rd respondent specifying 4(four) charges and requiring him to file written statement within 10(ten) days. Appellant did not do so. Finally show cause notice was published in a newspaper and thereupon appellant submitted explanation dated December 15, 1988 3rd respondent decided...
Rajgor Bhanji Mulji (Decd.) Through His Legal Heirs and R. and ors. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1243
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Will it nut be unreasonable, if not absurd, to grant relief against the clog on equity of redemption in one breath and to deny the relief of redemption in the other breath by treating the suit as tirne-barred? This is the question arising for the consideration of This Court in this Second Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff before the trial Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for brief) questioning the correctness of the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge of Kutch at Bhuj on 30th January, 1979 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1977. Thereby the learned lower appellate Judge has upset the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Mandvi on 24th January, 1977 in Civil Suit No. 117 of 1974. Thereby the learned trial Judge accepted the present appellant's suit for redemption of the mortgage and passed a preliminary decree in his favour.2. The facts giving rise to this Second ...
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gas Authority of India Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1115
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Rule.2. I have heard the parties regarding interim relief. Mr. K.S. Nanavati, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that status quo ante as on January 6, 1993 when initially the order was passed by This Court (Coram: D.G. Karia, J.) in the main matter, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 61 of 1993 may be restored. It is an admitted fact that ex-parte ad-interim relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the petition was granted on January 6, 1993. when notice was issued by This Court in the main matter. It was made returnable on January 18, 1993. Mr. Nanavati stated that the Gas Authority of India, respondent No. 1 herein, (sole respondent then in the petition) was served with the order immediately. The statement that respondent No. 1 was served and was aware of ad-interim order passed by This Court is not disputed even by the Learned Counsel for the first respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the first respondent appeared in This Court and Vakalatnama...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lallubhai Gordhandas Mehta Charitable T ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Guj)315; [1994]207ITR104(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following four questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the capital of the concern in section 13(4) of the Income-tax in Act would include even borrowed money employed as capital in the concer (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that aggregate funds of the trust invested in the concern did not exceed five per cent. of the capital of that concer (3) If reply to either question No. 1 or question No. 2 is against the assessee, whether the assessee was entitled to urge before the Appellate Tribunal that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in holding that deficit of Rs. 2,739 in the assessment year 1971-72 and of Rs. 5,881 in the assessment year 1972-73 incurred by the assessee in school section should not be available as set off against the other income while computing th...
Vijaykunverba Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Guj)94; [1994]208ITR312(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The following three questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, 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 correct in law in holding that the status of the executor will have no direct relationship or bearing with the income to be assessed or the tax liability (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the instant case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to deal with the question of status (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction in setting aside the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 ?' 2. The abovestated three questions have arisen in respect of the assessment for the ass...
N.D.D.B. Employees Union Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR891; (1995)ILLJ1Guj
1. Both these petitions raise identical questions and arise from similar facts. Both these petitions are second round of litigation on a question as to whether the dispute raised by the petitioner - Union can be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act. The appropriate authority has on both the occasions refused to make the reference. When the reference was earlier refused, the High Court had, in Special Civil Applications Nos. 50 of 1990 and 8443 of 1990 quashed and set aside the orders of refusal to make reference and directed the appropriate Government to reconsider the matter. The judgment in Special Civil Application No. 8443 of 1990 is now reported in (N. D. D. B Employees Union v. State) 1991 (1) GLR 410. The judgment in Special Civil Application No. 8443 of 1990 is at Annexure 'A' in Special Civil Application No. 1669 of 1991. 2. The petitioner - Union had raised a demand regarding proper wages to be paid by the respondents. The respondent No. 3...
Somabhai Kanjibhai Patel Vs. Abbasbhai Jafarbhai Daginawala and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1337
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and the decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Surat on 3rd November, 1977 in Special Civil Suit No. 207 of 1975 are under challenge in this First Appeal at the instance of the original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Act' for brief). It needs no telling that the appellant's suit has come to be dismissed thereunder.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are not many and not much in dispute. One Dawoodbhai Jafarbhai Daginawala (the deceased for the sake. of convenience) was a Partner in the Partnership Firm in the name and style of Johar Estate Corporation (the Partnership Firm for convenience) along with respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein. The Partnership Firm was dealing in lands. The appellant claims to have agreed to purchase plots Nos. 8 to 14 from Survey Nos. 276/1 and 277/1 situated in Udhna from the Partnership Firm on the consideration amount of Rs. 8,000. He is stated to have paid the enti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Strong Steel Private Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR628(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following two questions to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-I as well as higher rate of development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Act on the basis that it is a priority industry (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80-I as originally allowed by the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, the action under section 147(b) of the Act was not justified ?' 2. The assessee is a re-rolling mill manufacturing G.P. sheets, angles, bars, flats and other ancillary items. It claimed deduction under section 80-I and development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) on the basis that it was a priority indust...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kimatrai Printers and Processors Pvt. L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR748(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for its opinion : '1.0 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, six per cent of the capital employed should be deducted for the full year even though the undertaking had worked for seven months, the accounting year being of seven months 2. Whether, for the purposes of section 80J, the capital employed should be arrived at without deducting the liability and debts ' 2. The assessee changed the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 and made it of seven months only and thus it started on April 1, 1974, and ended on October 31, 1974. For that year, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80J. 3. The Income-tax Officer held that depreciation and deduction under section 80J would be admissible proportionately and not fully at the rate of six per cent, per annum fr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmedabad Crucible Company
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR574(Guj)
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The present reference is one under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the relevant assessment year is 1969-70. 2. The assessee is a registered firm and had sold its machinery, plant, factory, building, etc. The assessee disclosed profits under section 41(2) and the consequential long-term capital gains in its return of income. The Income-tax Officer determined the long-term capital gains at Rs. 96,728 and profits under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at Rs. 60,643. He also granted consequential relief under section 80T of the Income-tax Act so far as long-term capital gains were concerned. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, in the said appeal, contended that the sale of its plant, machinery, factory building, etc., was accompanied by its quota rights as well as licence held by the assessee and, therefore, in arriving at the assessee's profit under section 41(2) of the Act, as well as long-t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »