Gujarat Court April 1995 Judgments
Manharlal C. Soni Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR634(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. The following questions of law arising out of the order dated July 20, 1981, have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 85,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources (2) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 84,000 being the cash amount confiscated by the customs authorities as business loss ?' 2. During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the Central excise and customs authorities raided the room in a hotel occupied by the assessee on January 26, 1965, and recovered a sum of Rs. 84,000. According to the first explanation furnished by the assessee before the customs authorities, the amount formed part of Rs. 1,60,185 realised on the sale of smuggled gold. Before the customs authorities, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayesh Enterprise and ors. Vs. Fakirchand Champaklal Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR790
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code), the petitioners (third parties) have questioned the order passed below Exh. 137 on 20-7-1994 in Special Civil Suit No. 101 of 1989 recorded by the learned Fourth Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat.2. The opponent No. 1 herein instituted aforesaid Civil suit for specific perfornance of the contract on 8th February 1989 inter alia contending that opponent No. 1 had entered into an oral agreement with the original defendants on 7th July 1987 by paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for purchase of suit property and that the original defendants failed to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement. The suit for specific performance of the said agreement was required to be filed.3. The petitioner No. 1 herein is a Registered Partnership Firm and other petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are its partners. According to the petitioners' case, they have also entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Suvarnaben and anr. Vs. the Competent Authority and Additional Collect ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj13; (1996)1GLR419
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on 15th March, 1988 under Section 21(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Additional Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 29th July, 1988 in Appeal No. Ahmedabad-326 of 1988 is under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 1 withdrew the permission under Section 21(1) of the Act granted to the petitioners with respect to certain parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 302/2, 305, 306/1, 307, 300, 314/1/2, 368 and 369 in all admeasuring 58, 680 square metres (the disputed lands for convenience).2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners as the owners of the disputed lands made an application under Section 21(1) of the Act for permission to retain excess va...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Bachubhai Rajshibhai Vs. Raval Harivallabh Ishwarlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR431
D.G. Karia, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated March 20, 1985 rendered in Criminal Case No. 214 of 1983, whereby the learned Magistrate, First Class, Harij, acquitted the accused persons, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The complainant, Patel Bachubhai Rajshibhai, lodged a private complaint against the respondent No. 1, who was the Police Sub-Inspector at Harij at the relevant time, and against the respondent No. 2, alleging that on April 16, 1983 the complainant had lodged a complaint about the misconduct of the accused No. 1 while discharging his duty as P.S.I., Sami. When accused No. 1 came to know about this complaint, he along with accused No. 2 came to the residence of complainant at village Lolada at about 7-30 a.m. on April 18, 1983 and gave him filthy abuses and intentionally caused injuries and wrongfully confined him in the Panchayat Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Dhulabhai Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR372
D.G. Karia, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated March 2. 1990 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein and confirming the judgment rendered in Criminal Case No. 2244 of 1987 by the learned Judicial. Magistrate, First Class, Jambusar, holding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It was alleged that on August 17, 1987 at about 6-30 p.m. the accused was found in the compound of the Police Station in Jambusar in drunken condition and was abusing. The accused was, therefore, arrested and was then sent for medical examination, after preparing necessary Panchnama. The Medical Officer, having collected sample, sealed the phial containing said blood and sent it to the Chemical Analyser. The, Chemical Analyser reported that the blood contained 0.1173 per cent alcohol. The accused was thus charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences; The accused pl...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakkumar Prantilal Nanavati Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR563
D.G. Karia, J.1. A short question that arises in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the complainant/informant in a criminal case is entitled to get copies of the relevant papers and documents, and particularly statements recorded by the police officers under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the purpose of availing of an opportunity of making submissions in respect of final report submitted by the Investigating Officer seeking 'C' summary?2. That short question arises in the backdrop of the following circumstances. The petitioner lodged a complaint against Swami Amar Jyoti Shyam and others for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366, 368, 384 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Navrangpura police station. The said complaint came to be lodged as Cr. No. I 934 of 1987. The CID branch had taken over the investigation of the said offence on November 12, 1987. On completion of the investigation, a f...
Tag this Judgment!Palanpur Kariana Merchants Association and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR191
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the respondent Municipality of revising and increasing the rates of Octroi as per the public notice dated 25th August, 1989 at Annexure 'D' to the petition. As per the said public notice issued under Section 103 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, the Government had published the revised Octroi Rules sanctioned by their order dated 23-1-1989 and it was indicated in the notice that the Octroi prescribed by the revised Rules was to come into force from 1st October, 1989.2. The increase in the Octroi rate under the revised Rules has been challenged by the petitioners on the following grounds, which were urged by their Learned Counsel:1. The objections received against the proposed increase of Octroi were not considered by the Government while giving sanction under Section 102 of the said Act.2. The respondent Municipality had not separately opined on particular objections which were raised against the proposed inc...
Tag this Judgment!Rajya General Kamdar Mandal and ors. Vs. Vice President, Packart Press ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1116; (1996)ILLJ343Guj
Gokhale, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requires an interpretation of sub-section (5) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner also seeks to challenge the vires of sub-section (3) of the said section. 2. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows : The respondent No. 1 herein is the Vice President of Packart Press, a Division of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Company or employer). The second respondent is a Commissioner of Labour and specified authority of the appropriate Government under Section 25-O of the Act. Respondents nos. 3 and 4 are State of Gujarat and Government of India respectively. The petitioner is a trade union representing the workmen working in the said Packart Press. Respondent No. 1 Company prints the necessary packing materials and supplies the same to Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., which is its parent company. The Pac...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Pollution Control Board Vs. Rushabh Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1082
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application, at the instance of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Gandhinagar, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 5th November, 1993 rendered in Criminal Case No. 1406 of 1991, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, wherein the respondent - Rushabh Dye-Chem Industries, situated at G.I.D.C. Estate, Vatva, Ahmedabad, and two of its partners who came to be prosecuted for the alleged offences under Sections 37 and 39 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, were ordered to be 'discharged'.2. On going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Magistrate has ordered discharge of the respondents mainly on two grounds, viz., that during the inquiry before framing of the charge when the complainant came to be examined on oath, he failed to produce on record firstly, the copy of notification in question dated 6th August, 1984 declaring Ahmedabad as a pollution controlled ...
Tag this Judgment!Munnalal Mathura Prasad and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR162
B.C. Patel, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 1988 is preferred by original accused No. 1 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1988 is preferred by original accused Nos. 2 and 3 against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 269 of 1987 by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Ahmedabad on 19-7-1988, convicting the appellants-accused under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh each, in default of payment of fine, one year's rigorous imprisonment.Both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.2. Concisely stated, the prosecution case as it emerges from the records, is as under:2.1 Arvindsing Jaswantsing Chavda PW. 4, a police constable of Gomtipur Police Station, through an informant, came to know that one Radhechandra Jogeshwar, accused No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »