Gujarat Court March 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.
Minor Manojkumar Sureshchandra Sharma (Through His Administrator) Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1423
J.M. Panchal, J.1. This Civil Revision Application which is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and order dated September, 10, 1993 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad rejecting the Distress Warrant Application filed by the applicant under Section 53 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.2. The applicant claims to be the owner of the premises bearing Municipal Census No. 475/2 situated outside Delhi Darwaja, opposite Lalakaka Market, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the applicant that when the applicant purchased the disputed premises in the year 1991 from its original owner Ramanlal Laljibhai, the opponent was running a Hotel in the premises bearing Municipal Census No. 475/1 and as the opponent needed additional space for his sweet shop, he hired the premises bearing Municipal Census No. 475/2 from the applicant in the year 1991 and agreed to pay rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month excluding Municipal t...
Shri Ukai Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandali Ltd. and ors. Vs. Chhi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1151
C.K. Thakker, J.1. In all these three petitions, common questions of fact and law have been raised and, therefore, it is appropriate to dispose off them by a common order.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in these petitions, it is sufficient if material facts in Special Civil Application No. 3464 of 1994 are stated. They are as under:That petition is filed by Shri Ukai Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. ('Society' for short) and others for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad ['Tribunal' for short] below application Exh. 34 in Election petition No. 1 of 1994 by which the Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection taken by the Society that the petition filed by the first respondent herein was not maintainable at law.3. It is stated in the petition that when the Election petition came up for hearing before the Tribunal, a preliminary contention was raised by the Society regarding maintainability of the petition on...
Yashrat N. Bhatt Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR522(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner had filed a return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on August 30, 1979, declaring the income of Rs. 81,610. The same was accepted by respondent No. 1 and an assessment order dated August 4, 1981, was passed. It is the say of the petitioner that prior to the submission of the return, the petitioner had paid advance tax by three instalments estimating his income for the assessment year 1979-80 at Rs. 22,920 on the basis of the order passed by respondent No. 1. It is his further contention that the books of account of the firms in which the petitioner is a partner were not closed and adjusted up to December 15, 1978, by which he should have submitted the estimate as provided under section 212(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) and, therefore, he was under the bona fide impression that his share of profit in the said firms would be more or less equal to the income falling to his share in the preceding year. Subsequently, after rec...
Ganpati Salt Works and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj61; (1994)2GLR1697
ORDERD.G. Karia, J.1. Both these petitions involve common questions of fact and law and as such both the petitions are being disposed of by the common judgment, with the consent and agreement of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.2. In Special Civil Application No. 3424 of 1982, petitioner No. 2, Sarojben Ganpatlal Agrawal, is the proprietor of petitioner No. 1, Ganpati Salt Works. One Vala Jesang of village Padana. Talika Anjar, District Kutch, on his application, was granted a lease in respect of plot No. 3, situated on the sea-shore of Padana village for manufacture, storage and sale of salt and its bye-products by second respondent. The said lease was granted initially for aperiod of five yars from 1-8-1972 to 31-7-1977. An agreement to lease was executed by said Vala Jesang in favour of Government of Gujarat on 2-4-1973, a copy of which is at Annexure 'A' to the petition.3. In Special Civil Applic...
Pranlal Chimanlal Thakore Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Guj)318; [1995]212ITR362(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that by a registered sale deed dated June 23, 1961, the petitioner sold land bearing Survey No. 80, admeasuring 11,977 sq. yards for a consideration of Rs. 1,11,505; the petitioner received a notice dated July 21, 1962, issued by respondent No. 2 under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for filing of the return of income for the assessment year 1962-63. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed a return of income dated November 20, 1962, in the status of an association of persons showing the income as 'Nil'. It is contended by the petitioner that the said return of income filed was treated as invalid and was ordered to be filed on February 12, 1964. Prior to that, the petitioner received a second show-cause notice dated August 27, 1963, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act in his capacity as the karta and manager of the alleged Hindu undivided family of Chimanlal Narbheram Thakore. Again the petitioner submit...
Anitaben and ors. Vs. Abdulhakim Allarkhan Shaikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ831; (1995)1GLR479
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This civil revision application challenges the order dated 15.3.1991, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 1, Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 31 of 1989, rejecting the application for interim compensation moved under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. One Nalinkumar Manubhai Shah, aged about 38 years, reportedly died in an accident caused by an auto-rickshaw bearing No. GRX 281 on 18.2.1989. At the relevant time, the said auto-rickshaw was being driven by the respondent No. 1 and was owned by the respondent No. 2 herein. On that day, at the relevant time, i.e., at about 7.30 a.m. Nalinkumar was going to the Ahmedabad Railway Station when he met with the accident while crossing the road and died. He was an employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board. His wife and two minor children, therefore, filed Claim Petition No. 31 of 1989, claiming necessary compensation from the driver, owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the ...
Shantilal Lallubhai Pujara and anr. Vs. Kiritkumar Jayantilal Ghancha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR563
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners are the original defendants, the respondents are the original plaintiffs. The respondents have filed Civil Suit No. 51 of 1987 for declaration that the petitioners (Landlady) had no right to construct rooms over the terrace of the rented premises and also prayed for interim injunction.2. The trial Court had presumed that the tenants were in lawful possession of the terrace and can be deemed to be in possession of the entire premises, including the terrace, and the suit terrace prima facie forms part and parcel of the premises leased to the tenant. The learned Appellate Judge came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no such prima facie evidence showing and suggesting that the suit terrace was part of the rented premises.2.1. The suit premise consists of only ground floor structure and there is no upper storey.3. It is also very important to note that earlier the landlord had filed a Civil Suit No. 44 of 1978 before the learned Judge (J.D.), Dhran...
Parshottam Ranchhodbhai Tadpada Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR71
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 465 and 467/1 situated at Village Kamla, Taluka Nadiad, District Kheda, belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the opponent for the purpose of the road connecting the Nadiad-Mehmdabad road and the National Highway No. 8. After publication of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) necessary notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act and ultimately the opponent passed an award on January 4, 1989 offering compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per Are. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the opponent and, therefore, the petitioner by making an application required the Collector to refer the matter to the Court for determination of compensation. Accordingly, the Collector made reference which was registered as Land Reference No. 241 of 1991.2. At the time of hearing of the said reference application, the petitioner ...
Jamnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Shastrushalyasinhji Digvijaysinhji ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1277
M.B. Shah, J.1. These revision applications are filed against the common orders dated 19th February 1990 passed by the Assistant Judge, Jamnagar in appeals filed by the petitioner-Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. By the impugned orders the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 138(1) appeal/revision was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 138(3) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 before the Sessions Court. He arrived at the conclusion that revision application was maintainable in the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. At the time of hearing of these revision applications it is not disputed that appeals filed by the opponents before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 138(1) were properly filed and were maintainable. All appeals were filed against the levy of property tax by the Municipality by contending that it was excessive and heavy. As per the demand bill the Jamnaga...
Vallabhdas Nanji Bhalodia Vs. Trikam Gokul Bhalani (Since Decd.) Throu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1762
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The order dated October 18, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Vanthli, below application Exh. 71 in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1985 is the subject-matter of challenge in the present revision application which is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed that two witnesses, namely, (1) the original owner of the property Shri Liladhar Hansraj, and (2) Talati-cum-Mantri of Shapur village be examined as Court witnesses.2. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Judge has felt it necessary to examine the two witnesses as Court witnesses in order to find out the fact as to whether the Naveli exists at the disputed place as there is no reference to the existence of Naveli in one of the Sanads produced by the parties for the buildings respectively owned by them.3. The submission that the order has been passed without jurisdiction has no substance. Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »