Gujarat Court February 1994 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.
Wadhwan Mahajan Panjarapole Vs. B.D. Bhavasar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR457]; (1994)2GLR1418
Pandya, J.1. The petitioner is a Panjarapole operating within the District of Surendranagar in and around Wadhwan City. It is dealing mainly with taking care of disabled animals as set out in its Constitution annexed to the petition as Annexure 'A'-page 13. A question arose whether its employee is entitled to payment of gratuity under the Act having similar name Ponimum Act, 1972. The authority under the Act has decided in favour of the employee and the matter was carried in Appeal provided under the said Act and there also, the present petitioner lost. 2. As could be expected in the aforesaid background, the moot question agitated in the petition is whether the said Gratuity Act of 1972 applies to the petitioner or not? 3. In Sub-section (3) of Section 1 the applicability of the Act is specified and there are three sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) mentioned therein. Admittedly, if at all the petitioner is covered by the Act, it will fall within the purview of clause (b) of sub-section (3)...
Jayantilal Bachubhai Vadiwala and Etc. Vs. the Competent Authority and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj25; (1995)1GLR831
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J.1. All these four petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 1 herein) on 31st March 1983 in cases Nos. 93, 83,25 and 26 all of 1982 as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Additional Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 11th Feb., 1986 in Appeals Nos. Surat-94, 95, 96 and 97 all of 1983. Since the cases of all these petitioners were consolidated both by respondent No. 1 and in appeal by respondent No. 2 and since common questions of fact and law are found arising in all these petitions, I have thought it fit to dispose them of by this common judgment of mine.2. It appears that each petitioner filed his respective statement in the prescribed form under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to the properties held by him within the urban agglomeration of Surat as on 17th Feb., 1976. It may be mentioned a...
Municipal Employees Congress Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1279
A.P. Ravani, Actg.C.J. 1. Is it not within the powers of Municipal Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, to grant to its employees higher grade on completion of service of certain number of years? Can such decision of a Corporation be suspended by State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 451 of the BPMC Act? Broadly these are the questions which have arisen for consideration in this petition. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a union of workmen employed by Respondent No. 3, i.e., Baroda Municipal Corporation. Petitioner No. 2 is the General Secretary of the Union. Respondent No. 3 passed Resolution No. 222 dated July 6, 1982 and granted sanction for giving the benefit of higher grades to its employees. As per the resolution an employee who may complete ten years, eighteen years and twenty two years of service and who may have been deprived of promotion to higher post on account of non-availability of posts is to be g...
Sabrabibi Usmankhan Pathan Vs. Superintending Engineer Ge Board and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1067; (1995)ILLJ776Guj
1. The petitioner an unfortunate widow of a deceased employee has been rendered absolutely helpless and destitute on untimely and prematured death of her husband Usmankhan Ashrukhan, who expired as back as 9th of August, 1982 while he was on duty as Helper in Gujarat Electricity Board. She was then mother of three children, the youngest being two months old when her husband expired. To feed four months without any source of income was practically impossible for petitioner who comes from the community where ordinarily she has to live the life of Pardanashin women. The only bread - earner of the family being the husband died prematurely rendering entire family in a sheer helpless state of starvation. She applied to the respondent to appoint her on any suitable post either as peon or water women or to offer her any other work so as to entitle her to some amount from which she could maintain herself and the three children. Four years after the death of her husband, the respondent-Board cal...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Heirs of Deceased Sonabai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ1311; (1994)2GLR455
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The S.T. Corporation has filed this appeal against the interim order dated 3.2.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in M.A.C. Petition No. 193 of 1992 whereby original opponents were directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the original claimant subject to the final adjustment within a period of one month of the order.2. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant Corporation, has submitted that the respondent-claimant is an aged lady of 50 years. She filed a claim petition claiming that she is the only legal heir and representative of deceased, Sonabai Jeturbhai, who was the mother of the claimant. In that claim petition, an application Exh. 4 has been filed by the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 25.000/-from the Original opponents under no fault liability. Mr. Shah submitted that if the amount of Rs. 25,000/- is paid and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount, ultimately even if the Corporation...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarabhai and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR20(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The question which is required to be determined in the aforesaid reference is whether the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80M(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the net dividend income after or before deduction of the amount admissible under section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, at the behest of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of all these references by a common judgment. 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 375 of 1984, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : At the instance of the Revenue : 'Where the Tribunal has not erred in law and on facts in holding that deduction under section 80M is admissible before deduction of the amount admissible under section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 3. In Income-tax Reference Nos. 9 of 1985, 12 of 1985, 13 of 1985, 197 of 1985, 230 of 1985, 232 of 1985, 234 of 1985, 245 of...
Commissioner of Surtax/income-tax Vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Cali ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR270(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred to us the following question is for our opinion under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : For the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1 crore standing to the credit of dividend reserve account is liable to be treated as a reserve for including the same in computing the capital base of the company?' For the assessment year 1966-67 : '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that Rs. 40 lakhs provided for deferred taxation and Rs. 40 lakhs provided for debenture redemption reserve by the assessee should be treated as a reserve for the purpose of addition to the capital?' Regarding question No. 1 : The assessment years are 1965-66 and 1966-67. Before the Income-tax Office...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tanvi Sajni Family Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Guj)341; [1994]209ITR497(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of the trust deed dated March 31, 1973, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that shares of the beneficiaries are determinate is sustainable in law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment in the case of the assessee is not required to be made under the provisions of section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-trust is entitled to the allowances of interest paid to the beneficiaries ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessee is a family trust known as 'Tanvi Sajni Family Trust' and it field the return of income in respect of the said assessment year on June 29, 1975....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thyristors Controls Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR317(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and the in the circumstances of the case even assuming that the books containing technical know-how were kept in the office, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect thereof the under section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessment year is 1977-78. The assessee carried on business of the manufacturing certain electrical equipment and had made a claim for deduction by way of investment allowance of Rs. 92,415 on the amount of Rs. 5,69,651 for the cost of technical know-how under section 32A(1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim on the ground that the books containing the technical know-how were installed in office premises and, therefore, were excluded by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 32A of the Act. T...
Navjivan Udyog Mandir (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR40(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred to us the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 1. By the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the deduction of expenditure has been clearly granted to the assessee in the earlier years is without evidence and/or perverse 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that section 41(1) covered the case and that Rs. 5,00,000 was a benefit to the assessee taxable as income under that section ?' 2. By the Commissioner : '3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,06,879 was not liable to tax under section 41(1) of the Act ?' 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, with a view to focus the real controversy involved, question No. 2 is split into questions No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »