Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj59; (1963)GLR1033
Shelat, C.J.1. These two petitions challenge the validity of Sections 2(10a), 59-C and 59-D of the Bombay Prohibition Act, XXV of 1949, certain rules made thereunder, the two notifications issued oy the Government of Gujarat dated April 6, 1962 and the order dated September 26, 1962, refusing the wholesalers licence and the pass to import French Polish and Varnish from outside the State of Gujarat. As both the petitions raise identical questions, it is expedient to dispose of both of them together by a common judgment.2. Both the petitioners carry on business as wholesale dealers in French Polish and Varnish and have been importing for their business these two articles from States such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, etc. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1962 have been importing on an average about 1500 gallons of French Polish per month and have been selling the same both wholesale and retail, the average monthly sale of French Polish coming to about 1500 gall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1966]60ITR674(Guj)
BHAGWATI J. - This reference arises out of proceedings for the assessment to income-tax of the assessee for the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee is private limited registered under the Dhrangadhra State Companies Act, 1939, and carries on business as an authorized dealer of the products of Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Limited at Dhrangadhra. During the relevant period Dhrangadhra was a native Indian state outside what was then know as British India. The assessee was thus a nonresident for the assessment year with which we are concerned. During the financial year 1947-48, which was the relevant previous year for that assessment year, the assessee effected to the sales of the aggregate value of Rs. 40,58,445 out of which sales to the extent of Rs. 6,63,545 were made to buyers in Native India States while the balance of the sales aggregating to Rs. 33,94,900 were made to the British Indian buyers. These sales to British Indian buyers were again divisible in to the categories : (1) sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1964]54ITR37(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This reference arises out of proceedings for the assessment to income-tax of the assessee for the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee is private limited registered under the Dhrangadhra State Companies Act, 1939, and carries on business as an authorized dealer of the products of Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Limited at Dhrangadhra. During the relevant period Dhrangadhra was a native Indian state outside what was then know as British India. The assessee was thus a nonresident for the assessment year with which we are concerned. During the financial year 1947-48, which was the relevant previous year for that assessment year, the assessee effected to the sales of the aggregate value of Rs. 40,58,445 out of which sales to the extent of Rs. 6,63,545 were made to buyers in Native India States while the balance of the sales aggregating to Rs. 33,94,900 were made to the British Indian buyers. These sales to British Indian buyers were again divisible in to the categories : (1) sal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj130
(1) Second Appeals Nos. 476, 477 and 478 of 1960 are filed against the Union of India owning the Western Railway and the North Eastern Railway. They arise out of suits filed against the Union of India as representing the said railways for damages in respect of consignments of potatoes despatched from Farukhabad and which were received in damaged condition at Bhavanagar. Second Appeal No. 1188 of 1960 is filed against the Union of India as representing the Western Railway as regards a consignment sent to Palitana from Farukhabad. The facts in all these appeals are very similar and the points of law involved are the same. Therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates of both sides, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. It will be expedient, however to discuss separately some questions of facts and the effect of the position of law in Second Appeal No. 1183 of 1960. (2) Civil Suit Nos. 220 of 1956, 219 of 1956 and 221 of 1956 were filed by Tulsidas V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj172; (1967)0GLR686
(1) These two Second Appeals have been filed by the Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as `the company'), as both the Courts had decreed the suits filed by the consumers. Both these appeals raise common questions of law and so they are disposed of by me by this common judgment.(2) The short facts which have given rise to these appeals are as under:(2a) The Godhra Electricity Company was issued a licence on 17th October 1922 by the Government under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter referred top as 'the Electricity Act', to Lady Sulochana Chinubhai. The present company is the successor of the said licensee. It appears that after the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Supply Act', had come into force, rating committee was constituted at the request of the company on 19th January 1950 under S. 57(2) of the supply Act. The rating committee had submitted its report on 5th November, 1951 at Ex.42 and thereafter an order was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)0GLR955; [1968]68ITR740(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. The same question has been referred by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in each of these three references and we will dispose of them by this common judgment. The interesting question which arises in these three references is as to the effect of the repeal of the Act by the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 25 of 1965, the assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year is 1962-63. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee by a demand notice under section 18A (1), dated June 10, 1961, to pay advance tax in four equal instalments falling due on June 15, 1961, September 15, 1961, December 15, 1961, and March 15, 1962. For the purposes of this judgment, the amount which the assessee was called upon to pay is not relevant. The assessee failed to pay the instalment which fell due on December 15, 1961. The Income-tax Officer req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)10GLR857
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 1963 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kalawad for recovering possession of the suit shop together with mesne profits and costs of the suit against the appellant-original defendant inter alia alleging that he had taken the suit shop under a rent-note dated 20th October 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 33/- and that he had agreed to hand over possession thereof when he required the same for selling or mortgaging or at any time when he required for his own purposes by giving him one month's notice. The plaintiff required the said shop for raising a loan of Rs. 10, 000/- by creating a mortgage with possession thereon and that for that purpose be served him a notice dated 8th January 1963 terminating his tenancy and demanding possession of the suit shop from Maha Vad 30 of S.Y. 2019. Since the defendant failed to comply therewith he filed the suit against the defendant.2. The defendant resisted the suit by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)10GLR1036
S.M. Hegde, J.1. Common questions of law arise for decision in these appeals, by certificate, The suits from which these appeals arise have been considered together and decided by common judgment both in the High Court as well as in the courts below. It is convenient to do so in this Court as well.2. The suits in questions are representative suits, The plaintiff's-appellants who are consumers of electricity in the Godhra area sued the respondent-company on behalf of all the consumers in that area seeking to restrain the respondent from enforcing the enhanced charges sought to be collected from the consumers of powers used for lights and fans as well as of motive power.3. The facts leading to these may now be stated. On November 19, 1922, the then Government of Bombay granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to a concern called Lady Sulochna Chinubhai and Co. authorising it to generate and supply electricity to the consumers in Godhra area. Clause 10 of the licence presc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1970)11GLR935
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the construction and effect of Section 117 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968, and Section 116 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. On 29th October 1962, simultaneously with the Declaration of Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution, the President promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Defence of India Ordinance, the Central Government made the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently repealed by the Defence of India Act, 1962 on 12th December 1962 but by virtue of the saving provision, the Defence of India Rules, 1962 were continued in force. On 9th January 1963, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Defence of India Act, amended the Defence of India Rules by introducing Part XII-A comprising Rules 126A to 126Z (hereinafter referred to as the Gold Control Rules). Rule 126A,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1971Guj208; (1971)0GLR201
Patel, J. 1. Civil Revision Application Nos. 392 of 1966 and 371 of 1966 have been referred to the Division Bench. The same question is involved in both the Revisions and, therefore, they are heard together. 2. Civil Revision Application No. 371 of 1966 came up for hearing before our learned brother Vakil J. Vakil J. held that there was no bar of res judicata. The suit was brought by the landlord for possession of leased premises on the ground that tenancy was terminated as the tenant had subject the premises before 1-1-1964. The Saurashtra Rent Control Act was in force at the time of subletting, however, the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Gujarat Extension Amendment Act, 1963, Act No. 57 of 1963) came into force on 1-1-1964. By the said Act, the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (Saurashtra Act XXII of 1951) was repealed. The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 with amendments was applied to the Saurashtra area. The contractual...
Tag this Judgment!