Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1980]124ITR334(Guj)
..... it is an admitted position that the assessee is a manufacturer of vegetable oil and for that purpose has got a solvent extraction plant also. ..... the assessee-firm has got a solvent extraction plant at veraval. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR892
a.m.kapadia, j.1. these two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated september 18, 1995 rendered by learned additional city sessions judge, (court no. 18), ahmedabad city in sessions case no. 114 of 1992 by which the appellants ('accused' for short) of criminal appeal no. 917 of 1995 came to be convicted of the offences under sections 304 part ii and 323 read with section 114 of the indian penal code ('ipc' for short) and a-1 and a-3 were sentenced to suffer r.i. for a period of five years for commission of the offence under section 304 part ii of the ipc whereas a-2 was sentenced to suffer s.i. for a period of five years for commission of the offence under section 304 part ii read with section 114 of the ipc and also s.i. for a period of three months for the offence under section 323 of the ipc.2. criminal appeal no. 1149 of 1995 is filed by the state under the provisions of section 378 of the code of criminal procedure ('the code' for short) challenging the acquittal of the accused of the offence under section 302 of the ipc as according to the state, offence against the accused under section 302 of the ipc has been duly proved whereas criminal appeal no. 917 of 1995 is filed by the accused under section 374(2) of the code challenging the order of conviction of the offence under section 304 part ii as well as section 323 of the ipc.3. the basic facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge, therefore, it is not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)1GLR431
m.s. shah, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.1.1986 of the learned additional sessions judge, ahmedabad at narol in sessions case no.120 of 1985 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under section 302 ipc.2. the accused was charged with the offence of committing murder of savjibhai nanjibhai thakkar at dholka at 5-30 pm on 30.8.1985. the prosecution case, as per the complaint lodged by amrutlal savjibhai, son of the deceased at 8-30 pm on the same evening, was that at 5-30 that evening, the deceased had gone to the wada near the house of the complainant for giving grass to their buffalo when there was altercation between the accused and the deceased, and the accused got excited and picked up a pavda (an agricultural equipment like a shovel with a 60 degree angle between the iron pan and the wooden handle) lying in the wada and gave the first blow on the forehead of the deceased and when the deceased was falling down on the ground, the accused gave the second blow on the back of the head of the deceased. when the complainant and the other family members heard the commotion they came out of the house and they saw the accused giving two blows to the deceased with the pavda. on seeing the complainant and others, the accused ran away. the deceased and two other persons tried to chase the accused but as the deceased had become unconscious and was lying in the wada, the complainant and others returned to the spot and took the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1968]22STC493(Guj)
..... it was provided in the contract that as soon as the plant and materials were brought on the site where the coaches were to be constructed, the ownership in them would vest in the railway. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1971)12GLR850
p.n. bhagwati, c.j.1. these appeals under clause 15 of the letters patent are directed against two orders passed by n.g. shelat, j. in election petition no. 18 of 1967. the facts giving rise to these appeals are common and for the most part undisputed and they may be briefly stated as follows.2. on 13th january 1967 the governor of gujarat issued a notification under section 15(2) of the representation of the people act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the act) calling upon all assembly constituencies in the state of gujarat to elect members to the legislative assembly. the dates for various stages of the election were thereafter fixed by the election commission by a notification issued under section 30 and a public notice was issued under section 31 by the retirement', officer inviting nominations of candidates for the election. nomination papers for the election from the daskroi legislative assembly constituency no. 68 were accordingly filed by nine candidates. but out of them seven withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time leaving a straight contest between the remaining two candidates, namely, respondents nos. 1 and 2. the polling for the election took place on 15th february 1967 and on 22nd february 1967 the result of the polling was announced and the first respondent was declared elected as a member of the legislative assembly from the daskroi legislative assembly constituency no. 68. the petitioner who was a person entitled to vote at the election and who .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Guj)652
..... mr.j.p.shah, learned advocate supported the order of the tribunal by pointing out that the assessee had categorically placed on record the evidence to show that each of the units of the assessee were having plant and machinery whose value in aggregate does not exceed the specified limit, but the revenue, instead of treating the assessee to be eligible, only for the purpose of denying the benefit, aggregated the ..... section 80i of the act, an industrial undertaking shall be deemed to be a small-scale industrial undertaking if the assessee could show that the industrial undertaking had the aggregate value of the machinery and the plant (other than tools, jigs, dies and moulds) installed as on the last day of the previous year which did not exceed rs. ..... and(3) in a case where the previouis year ends after the 17th day of march, 1985, thirty-five lakh rupees,and for this purpose the value of any machinery or plant shall be,-(i) in the case of any machinery or plant owned by the assessee, the actual cost thereof to the assessee; and(ii) in the case of any machinery or plant hired by the assessee, the actual cost thereof as in the case of the owner of such machinery ..... revenue itself indicated that claim of the assessee that each of the units does not have value of plant and machinery which exceeded the specified limit was not in dispute and that was the reason the revenue authorities wanted to club the value of plant and machinery of all the units and treat as one industrial undertaking. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)4GLR545
d.c. srivastava, j.1. this is landlord's revision under section 29(2) of the bombay rent act, against concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court as well as the appellate court.2. the revision arises out of the following facts :super structure locally known as 'imla' standing over the city survey no.3068 situated in fata talav area, bharuch city, was let out by the father of the plaintiffs no.2 to 6 and husband of plaintiff no.1 to the defendant on monthly rent of rs.5/-. the tenancy commenced on 7.11.1965. it was alleged that the defendant admitted to be tenant of the plaintiffs till 8.6.1970 and thereafter he started acting as if he is not the tenant in the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit premises, he started denying the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. consequently the suit for eviction of the defendant was filed by the plaintiffs - reisionists on the ground of disclaimer of title.3. the defendant in his written statement denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs. it was pleaded that when new survey had taken place in bharuch the suit premises was entered in the name of the defendant. the defendant had spent huge amount on the suit premises and therefore he thought that because of the same the suit premises was entered in his name and he became its owner. he, therefore, gave application in this behalf and as such he stated that the suit premises was entered in his name and he became owner thereof. it was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. rule. mr.nikunt k.raval, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule for respondents nos.1 and 2 and mr.mehul s.shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.3. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally. 2. the challenge in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, is to the order dated 30.11.2013, passed by the learned 10th additional district judge (adhoc), rajkot ("the appellate court", below the applications at exs.5 and 27, in civil misc. appeal no.12 of 2011, whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by the learned 4th additional senior civil judge, rajkot ("the trial court") below the applications at exs.5 and 27, in regular civil suit no.98 of 1999, has been dismissed. 3. briefly stated, the facts of the case, as presented in the petition, are that land bearing survey no.107, t.p.scheme no.2, final plot no.847, admeasuring 11305 square meters, situated in rajkot city (the subject land), is in the possession of the petitioners for the past twelve years. the petitioners are running a shop in the name of hardik telecom and hardik estate broker and travels on the subject land. according to the petitioners, the gujarat electricity board has granted an electricity connection in the name of the petitioners and a portion of the land is being used .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR714
s.d. shah, j.1. the petitioner before this court is the defendant of h.r.p. suit no. 3888 of 1977 which is instituted in the court of small causes at ahmedabad by the respondent-plaintiff seeking his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of acquisition of suitable residential accommodation by the tenant after coming into force of the bombay rents, hotel & lodging house rates control act.2. the suit was filed by one vasumatiben maganlal manani as plaintiff through her power of attorney-holder - rajabhai manani, and it appears that vakalat patra as well as the plaint of the suit were signed by the power of attorney-holder on behalf of vasumatiben manani.the defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. issues were, thereafter, framed by the trial court and the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. the plaintiff, thereafter, gave purshis of closure of evidence on 13-4-1982 and the oral evidence of the defendant was also recorded and the suit was adjourned for arguments. thereafter, on 10th june, 1982 the defendant moved an application to amend the written statement inter alia to introduce the defence that the plaint was not properly signed by the plaintiff as required under order 6 rule 14 of the c.p. code and said amendment was granted by the trial court. the trial court thereafter framed two following additional issues:6(a) whether the defendant proves that the plaint deserves to be rejected as contended in para 4-a of the written .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj308; (1969)GLR1011
orderj.m. sheth, j.1. this is a revision application filed under section 115 of the civil procedure code by the original opponent against the order passed by the learned civil judge, junior division, okha mandal at dwarka in civil miscellaneous application no. 6 of 1966, below ex. 21, dated 8th november, 1967. 2. the facts giving rise to this revision petition are briefly stated as under-- 3. the present opponent who is the wife of the petitioner, filed the aforesaid civil miscellaneous application to allow her to file a suit in forma pauperis. the suit claim was in respect of recovery of arrears of maintenance to the tune of rs. 6,200/- a declaration was sought that she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband at the rate of rs. 200/- per month from 2nd november. 1966 she claimed the relief in regard to both these claims against the person and also against the moveable and immoveable properties of the present petitioner she prayed that for her maintenance amounts that be awarded, charge be kept over the moveable and immoveable properties of her husband. the petitioner had these moveable and immoveable properties within the jurisdiction of another court, i.e. the court of mandvi, kutch admittedly, the move-able and immoveable properties of the petitioner were not within the jurisdiction of the court of the civil judge, junior division. okha mandal at dwarka. 3a. as the contention was raised by the petitioner in that application that the court had no jurisdiction in .....
Tag this Judgment!