Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj124; (1970)0GLR226
Miabhoy, C.J. (1) These two petitions raise common questions of law and some common questions of fact. Each of the petitions has a common petitioner and a set of common respondents. Therefore, both the petitions were heard together and a common argument was addressed by learned counsel on both sides. With their consent, we are writing this common judgment which would dispose of both the petitions. (2) The two petitions challenge the validity of a house tax imposed by the Broach Borough Municipality and embody prayers for issuance of a writ of mandamus, a direction or an order for restraining respondents, their agents and servants from enforcing the tax, and the provisions of law under which the tax is sough to be levied from petitioner.(3) The facts which are required to be stated to dispose of the two petitions are as follows: In both the petitions the common petitioner is Prathvi Cotton Mills Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 (hereinafter called pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]98ITR85(Guj)
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This revision petition is filed by original defendant No. 1, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amreli, in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 1968, filed by the plaintiff (opponent No. 1), against the petitioner and opponent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2), dismissing the application, exhibit 45. That application was filed on behalf of the defendants of the suit raising objection against the prayer made by plaintiff-opponent No. 1, summoning a clerk of the income-tax department for production of certain records produced in the income-tax proceedings. * * * *2. The learned trial judge negatived the contention of the defendants and ordered the production of these documents relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sivagami Achi v. Ramanathan Chettiar. 3. The learned single judge has referred the matter to a Division Bench, and that is how the matter has come to us. 4. Mr. Suresh M. Shah, appearing for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2516
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Preambulatory Profile :The challenge in this Public Interest Litigation is referable to judicial scrutiny, determination and adjudication of the constitutionality of the exercise of legislative jurisdiction in enacting a statute for regularisation of unauthorised developments in urban development areas or development in other parts of the State and known as 'The Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2001' ('Impugned Act') in the backdrop of two celebrated jurisprudential doctrines, viz. : (i) judicial review, and (ii) Ultra vires concept, which manifestly and evidently bring into sharp focus in microscopic evaluation a promising and panoramic profile of the issue :-'Political review of Judicial pronouncements by legislative power or judicial review of legislative jurisdiction and competence of two out of three chief organs of the State, viz. : Legislature and the Judiciary.'2. The petitioner claims to be a social worker and holding the office of Presi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj194
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The District Development Officer and the Ahmedabad District Panchayat, hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat', have filed this appeal as the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the District Development Officer removing the petitioner on August 21, 1971, and gave a declaration that he continued in service and was entitled to all emoluments and other benefits arising from his said appointment. The respondent originally joined service as a clerk in July 15, 1941, and thereafter he was made Assistant Accountant in the Ahmedahad District School Board from December 2, 1961. The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act' came into farce from April 1, 1963 under which the Ahmedabad District School Board was dissolved. Therefore, the petitioner was allocated to the District Panchayat from August 1, 1963, by the order, dated July 8, 1966, The D.D.O. transferred the petitioner to Agricultural branch under the District Panchayat and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)28CTR(Guj)148; [1983]139ITR628(Guj)
Desai, J. 1. The familiar but vexed question raises its head again in this reference : Was a piece or parcel of land held by the assessee 'agricultural land' so that the surplus realised on the sale thereof was not chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Capital gains' The question arose in the course of the proceedings for the assessee's assessment to income-tax for the assessment year 1969-70, the previous year being the financial year ended March 31, 1968. The question is required to be answered in the light of the facts set out hereunder. 2. The assessee, who ordinarily resides at Ahmedabad had purchased along with another person a piece or parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 15, 054 sq. yards (approximately 3 acres 4 gunthas) situate in village Bilimora for a total consideration of Rs. 43,989. The conveyance was executed on August 18, 1965. The assessee had an undivided one-third share in the said piece or parcel of land and he contributed a sum of Rs. 15,400 towards the cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]101ITR61(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this case at the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us for our opinion by the Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation was rightly allowed to the assessee on the basis that the cost to it of the machinery purchases was Rs. 30,572 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The relevant assessment years are assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66. The assessee is a private limited company. During the calendar year 1955, that is, the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee purchased from the Industrial Trading and Financial Company Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland, a mechanical Picker press for 27,820 Swiss Francs equivalent to Rs. 30,572 as shown in the supplier's bill dated April 28, 1955. The machinery was actually received by the assessee on June 15, 1955. According to the bill the payment was to be made against sight draft within 180 days. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)1GLR183
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 17 of 1987 pending before the learned JMFC, Sidhpur.2. On perusal of the complaint which is annexed as Annexure-A to the petition, it appears that the complaint was filed under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC as also under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is doing the business of selling cold drinks in the Court compound at Sidhpur. He was also keeping 'Thums Up' drink manufactured and supplied by the original accused present petitioners. It is also alleged that on 15th May, 1987 a customer asked for 'Thums Up' bottle which the complainant had purchased from the Garden Hindu Hotel who are the distributors of 'Thums Up' for Sidhpur vide bill No. 3332. When the complainant took the bottle of 'Thums Up' he fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2002(25)PTC161(Guj)
ORDER BELOW APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION 1. These applications are filed by plaintiff Mr. Pravinbhai J Mehta in five suits filed by him against defendant No. 1 Officine Lovato S.P.A. (the first defendant) under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (the Act). Since in all the five suits the parties are the same and common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of automobile spares. The plaintiff also claims to have invented and designed five specific designs in certain parts which are used for converting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) as fuel for running automobiles. The details about the registration numbers, dates of application and the dates of registration are set out in a chart, which is annexed to this order and is to be treated as a part of this order.3. The plaintiff filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)2GLR596
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the State Government, is directed against the judgment and order of the City Civil Court Ahmedabad, dated February 27, 1980, granting declaration that the notice for summary eviction issued by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, purporting to act under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') from the land of S. No. 518 situated within the revenue limits of village Vadaj, Ahmedabad Taluka, admeasuring about acres 19-02 gunthas, is bad in law and void, inasmuch as Section 202 of the Code being corresponding law stood repealed in light of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act') which repealed not only the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 but also any other corresponding law for eviction of occupants from the public premises. In order to apprecia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]85STC258(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions, a common question of vires of section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as amended by section 2 of the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990, arises for consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. In order to appreciate this common grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to not a few introductory facts : 3. I. Introductory facts : The petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). They carry on the activity of manufacturing and selling various goods in this State. For the purpose, they require raw materials which are to be used in manufacturing the end-products. The raw materials purchased by them in the State and used in the manufacturing process have been subjected to purchase tax by the impugned provisions. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature...
Tag this Judgment!