Gujarat Court August 1993 Judgments
Jadav Prabhatbhai Jethabhai and ors. Vs. Parmar Karshanbhai Dhulabhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj124; (2001)1GLR16
A.N. Divecha, J. 1. Certain ticklish questions arise in this appeal is. it necessary, for a minor on attaining his majority to sue for setting aside a transaction with respect to an immovable property by his de facto guardian affecting the former's interest therein? If it is not necessary, is it necessary for the minor on attaining his majority to file a suit for declaration that the transaction In question is void and is not binding to him? The Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tattya Mohyaji Dhomse v. Rabha Dadaji Bhomse reported in AIR 1953 Bombay 273 has answered both these questions in favour of the present appellants. One may then feel that these questions no longer retain any ticklish nature therein. However, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh reported in AIR 1992 SC 111 has created some difficulty in answering these questions in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in th...
Tag this Judgment!Memon Ibrahim Haji Latif Sukhediwala Vs. Officer on Special Duty (Land ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR296
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. In this Reference, the question that engages our attention and calls for an answer at our hands is as to whether the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', has got the power to condone the delay in preferring an application asking for reference to Court. Section 18 of the Act, in its entirety, reads as follows:18. Reference to Court:(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:Provided that every such application shall be made;-(a) If the person making it was pre...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Purshottamdas T. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Guj)332; [1994]209ITR52(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment order is time-barred as no tax payable was determined in the assessment order and holding that there was no indication that the tax was worked out ?'2. For the assessment year 1973-74, the Income-tax Officer passed an order on March 30, 1976, whereby he assessed the total income of the assessee. On April 28, 1976, he issued a demand notice calling upon the assessee to pay Rs. 11,739 as tax determined on the basis of the assessed total income.3. The assessee challenged the assessment of total income and the notice of demand by preferring an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The validity of the assessment and the issuance of the notice was challenged on the ground that as th...
Tag this Judgment!Central Pulp Mills Ltd., Surat Vs. Central Pulp Mills Employees Union ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1688; (1994)ILLJ1096Guj
Shethna, J.1. The Central Pulp Mills Ltd., the petitioner, has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award passed on 7-71993 by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) Nos. 6 and 7 of 1993, which is Annexure 'D' to this petition. .............................. 4. Mr. V. B. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company submitted that the Specified Authority though rightly accepted the case of the Company of break down of the machinery under Section 25M(4) and under Model Standing Order No. 18 (1), committed an error in granting lay-off upto 8-9-1993 instead of 31-12-1993 as prayed for. He submitted that it was not open to the Specified Authority to reduce the period of lay-off once the Company established its case for lay-off. Mr. Patel further submitted that having agreed with the finding of the Specified Authority regarding the case of break down of machinery, it was not open to the Tribunal to come to a differen...
Tag this Judgment!Chandanben Manilal Dhariya Wd/O. Manilal Chhotalal Dhariya and ors. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR291
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the learned Judge of Court No. 10 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on 23rd January, 1977 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the original judgment-creditor under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 ('the Act' for brief).2. The litigation has a chequered history behind it. The predecessor-in-title of the present appellants, named, Manilal Chhotalal Dhariya ('the judgment-creditor' for convenience) had obtained a decree in the sum of Rs. 4,070/- with interest and costs in Civil Suit No. 677 of 1968 against the present respondent ('the insolvent' for convenience). The judgment-creditor filed an execution application for execution of the aforesaid decree by arrest and detention of the insolvent in the civil prison. It came to be registered as Civil Darkhast No. 207 of 1969. In that Darkhast the insolvent was arrested under warrant and detained in the civil prison on 23rd & 24m September, 1971. He thereafter made one ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajit Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR658(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses of Rs. 17,127 incurred by the assessee for the issue of bonus shares can be said to be incurred in the course of business and for the purpose of carrying on the business 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer ought to have allowed the claim of the assessee for Rs. 10,79,935 being provision of gratuity based on the report of the actuary ?' 2. The point arising for our consideration as a result of question No. 1 is covered by two decisions of this court and the point arising for our consideration as a result of question No. 2 is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court. The facts leading to those questions, therefore, need not be stated. 3. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, it may be s...
Tag this Judgment!Paushak Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR535(Guj)
1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the relief under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be considered after considering unabsorbed losses and depreciation ?' 2. The assessee installed Carbaryl plant in a backward area. In the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee claimed deduction of 20 per cent. on the profits derived from the said Carbaryl plant under section 80HH of the Act. The contention of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer was that for determination of the relief under section 80HH of the Act, the gross total income had to be worked out without deduction of unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this contention and worked out the gross total income after deducting unabsorbed losses for th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramesh Investment and Trading (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR227(Guj)
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The present reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 raises the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly found that the proceedings for reassessment under s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961 initiated by the ITO suffered from infirmities and, hence, his action without jurisdiction ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company whose assessment in respect of the asst. yr. 1974-75 was originally completed on 20th July, 1976. Thereafter on 10th January, 1979 the ITO issued under s. 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment. Accordingly the ITO reopened the assessment under s. 147(b) of the said Act; but did not refer to the reasons for reopening the said assessment in his order of reassessment dt. 8th January, 1980. 3. The assessee went in appeal to the CIT(A) wherein the assessee challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. The CIT(A) held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dashrathlal L. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1676
S.D. Dave, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the orders pronounced by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6775 of 1986 dated November 30, 1992. The relief accorded to the petitioner by the learned single Judge vide the said orders runs thus:.Accordingly, I would direct the respondent to operate the select list of Depot Manager published in the month of April, 1985 so far as petitioner is concerned and to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Depot Manager within four weeks from the receipt of the writ of This Court. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent.2. The question which arises for our consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal may be formulated thus:.Whether a Select List drawn up in confirmity with the existing Recruitment Rules for filling up the existing vacancies can be abandoned and the process of selection which had culminated in drawing up of such a Selection List can be set at naught eith...
Tag this Judgment!indumati M. Shah and ors. Vs. Narendra Muljibhai Asra and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1995CriLJ918
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. These three applications are ' filed challenging the action of the learned Special Judge, Rajkot when he entertained a private com-plaint and passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. by which he directed an officer not below the rank of the D.I.G. of C.B.I., I. B. Branch, New Delhi to investigate the case and submit his report and chargesheet within one month from the date of the order i.e. 12-4-1993. With the consent of the law this they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The complaint came to be presented on 24-3-93 which happened to be a public holiday on account of Cheti Chand. Next day i.e. 25-3-93 was also a public holiday on account of Ramzan-Id. As the learned District Judge was not available, the matter came to be dealt with by the in charge District Judge and on that day, below the complaint, he passed the following order:Presented by the complainant and his advocate Shri Pandya. Received at 10.50 a.m. on a public holiday. So it is kep...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »