Gujarat Court January 1994 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandulal Venichand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1994
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Guj)257; [1994]209ITR7(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that as far as sales tax liability in respect of the last quarter was concerned, the said liability would be allowable as deduction for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88 provided the assessee establishes that the liability was discharged by actual payment before the date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) in respect of the relevant previous year in which the liability had been incurred?' 2. A similar question is referred in a number of other subsequent matters. For the purpose of this reference, we take the facts from the order passed by the Tribunal. The assessee, Messrs. Chandulal Venichand, filed a return of total income of Rs. 41,210. The return was filed on March 20, ...
Tag this Judgment!Anishbhai Ishabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj118; (1994)2GLR456
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is that his removal from membership of Gram Panchayat and resultant disqualification is unjust and illegal.2. The relevant facts giving birth to this petition shortly may be stated firsty. The petitioner was a member of Sanjeli Gram Panchayat against whom proceedings came to be initiated; for his removal on account of various complaints, under the provision of Section 49 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (the Panchayat Act' for short). It appears that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned in the petition that he is removed from the membership of the Panchmahals Jilla Panchayat. Unfortunately, the petition is founded upon a fact wrongly conceived that the petitioner is removed from the membership of Jilla Panchayat instead of mentioning the Gram Panchayat. Apart from that, the case of the petitioner is that provisions of Section 49(1) of the Panchayat Act were n...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhubhai Sankabhai Vs. Chandrakant Devshanker and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1350
ORDERM.S. Parikh, J.1. The Revisional Petitioner-original accused has brought under challenge the judgment and order dated 30th May 1986 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1985 confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') rendered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrarte, Court No. 8 in Criminal Case No. 124 of 1982 sentencing the accused to suffer six months, Simple Imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 1000/and in default one month's Simple Imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution was that on 26th June 1982 at about 6.00 a.m. the accused was intercepted by the Food Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Inspector purchased a sample from him in presence of Panch Dilipkumar Tarachand Shah and Peon Sarabhai Bhanabhai for its analysis by a Public Analyst. Upon the analysis having be...
Tag this Judgment!Mehsana Municipality Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR5
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is a municipality constituted under the appropriate provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The petitioner also challenges the legality and validity of the following orders:(1) Order dated 24th September, 1977 passed by the Collector, Mehsana by which power is given to the District Panchayat to recover amount of contribution payable by non-authorised municipality. In respect of petitioner-municipality such amount due was Rs. 5,42,853.89 ps (Rupees five lakhs forty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-three and paise eighty-nine only).(2) Order dated April 24, 1978 passed by the Collector, Mehsana, by which an amount of Rs. 1,61,063.57 ps (Rupees one lakh sixty-one thousand sixtythree and paise fifty-seven only) has been deducted from the grant payable to the petitioner-municipality.(3) Order dated February 21, 1979 ...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Surtax/income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR196(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred for the opinion of the High Court the following questions under the provisions of section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reserves was required to be deducted to the extent of Rs. 40,94,438 under the provisions of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964? 2. Even if the reply to the above question is against the assessee, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the above reduction was justified when the assessee had declared a dividend of Rs. 15,58,752 during the years in which the above excess of Rs. 40 lakhs arose?' 2. Regarding question No. 1, for the assessment year 1976-77, the Surtax Officer has made a computation of capital a...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand Vadilal Vasani and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Guj206; (1994)2GLR1634
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Bhavnagar on 7th July, 1984 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Ceiling Act' for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal ('the Appellate Authority' for convenience) on 26th May, 1987 inter alia in Appeal No. Bhavnagar-1318 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Competent Authority declared the holding of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling area by 4749.69 square meters.2. The dispute arising in this petition centres round four parcels of land bearing Plots Nos. 865 admeasuring 1071.24 square metres, 886 admeasuring 1003.35 square metres, 888 admeasuring 1449.01 square metres and 1300 measuring 836.13 square metres situated in Bhavnagar ('the disputed lands' for convenience). The aforesaid block of four lands was taken on lease for 99 years by the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Mavjibhai Maganbhai Parmar Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj4; (1994)2GLR1027
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The termination of a dealership agreement in petroleum products like kerosene and light diesel oil by respondent No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ('HPC' for short) is under challenge under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. A few material and relevant facts emerging from the record may be first stated. The petitioner applied for dealership on the reserved quota being scheduled caste member pursuant to the advertisement published in 1979 as per the practice and procedure. The petitioner was interviewed and he was granted a letter of intent on 5-11-1980. The petitioner had not complied with the terms and conditions of the letter of intent and, therefore, the same was withdrawn. Upon a representation made by the petitioner, his case was sympathetically considered and he was granted a fresh letter of intent on 3-1-1983.3. The petitioner was granted dealership by virtue of an agreement entered into between the petitioner and responden...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishchandra J. Bumia Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR995
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This is a gross case wherein the petitioner has continued possession of a stall in Baroda Central Bus Station under the interim order of the Court on a specious plea that the Corporation should give the stall by inviting tenders. The petitioner has continued for almost 13 years at the same old licence fee of Rs. 590/- without any competition, any tender and to the utter detriment of the public interest and interest of the Corporation.2. The petitioner was given the stall in the year 1970 and he continued for 11 years and the licence fee was revised from time to time and lastly, it was Rs. 590/- per month. This yearly renewal at the expiry of 11 years, as per the policy of the Corporation, was not to be renewed beyond 11 years and it was to be allotted afresh. At that stage, the petitioner filed this Special Civil Application which was admitted and interim relief was granted in terms of para 11(d) which reads as follows:Be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining...
Tag this Judgment!Pestanji Jamshedji Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1287
R.A. Mehta, J.1. Misc. Civil Application for restoration of Special Civil Application is granted and disposed of and the Special Civil Application is finally heard.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the order of the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority declaring excess surplus land of the petitioner from his holding of land.2. The orders are challenged on two grounds:(1) That the land of survey No. 124 admeasuring about 9,915 sq. mts. is agricultural land and mainly used for agriculture on the date of commencement of the Act and, therefore, it is not vacant land and, therefore, it could not have been included in the petitioner's holding of vacant land and could not have been declared surplus.(2) The petitioner's application for exemption of this land made on 7-8-1976 was pending and not decided when the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority decided to include this land in the holding of the petitioner and declared the excess land.3. The first content...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipkumar Dahyabhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR734
Parikh, J.1. This acquittal appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, rendered on 11th August 1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 6A of 1982. 2. That Appeal was directed against the conviction of the respondents being the owner and the manager of the factory run in the name and style of 'Jayant Extraction' in the town of Jamnagar, recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. Jamnagar on 22nd March 1982 in Criminal Case, bearing Nos. 2715 and 2716 of 1980. The two respondents are herein referred to as 'the accused or accused persons'. They were sentenced to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. The facts of the case are really alarming. It is so happened that on 4th August 1980 two labourers viz., Pushparaj Arumukham and Natraj Kandshyama had to attend to the work of cleaning of the boiler located in the aforesaid factory, in the afternoon but they in fact at about 8-00 O'clock i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »