Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1979Guj149; (1979)0GLR268
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. The question that has been referred to this Full Bench is as follows:-'Whether the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Revn. Appln. No. 517 of 1972 decided on 27-1-1977 (since reported as Zabuben Devji v.. Mansukhlal Bhagwandas : AIR1978Guj36 is affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1977]1SCR996 (Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. Kunhaliumma))? The facts giving rise to this special civil application may be shortly stated: These proceedings arise out of an execution application filed for the execution of an award in Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act Application No. 2832 of 1949. This award was made on July 19, 1951. Under the award, the judgment-debtor had to pay an aggregate amount of Rupees 3651/- by seven yearly instalments of Rs. 525/- each. The first instalment was to be paid on or before Vaisakh Sudi 2, Sainvat Year 2008, and the subsequent instalments were to be paid on Vaisakh Sudi 2 of every year thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj235; 1970CriLJ1475
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant one Gela Hira Rabari against the judgment and order of his conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1966. The conviction is under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) for the accused having on the morning of December 31, 1965 at 9.30 a.m. sold to the complainant Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 700 M litre of cow's milk for 0.56 Paise which on analysis, was found to be adulterated. The offence was committed near the station of Maninagar in Ahmedabad. The accused-appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven months.2-3. The prosecution case as is revealed from the evidence of the Food Inspector Shantilal Vidyashankar Pandya P.W. 1 Ex. 2 is that on the morning of December 31,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1977]106ITR691(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle VII, Ahmedabad, and at the relevant time he was in charge of the matter pertaining to the second respondent herein. The second respondent-firm was a registered firm for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, and it was manufacturing hosiery goods in Ahmedabad. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65, the then Income-tax Officer noticed that the second respondent was dissolved and each of the partners had distributed amongst themselves all the assets including the machinery of the firm and this was done under the deed of dissolution dated August 31, 1964. It appears that on this machinery, development rebate had been allowed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, under the provision of section 10(2)(vib), but the property was found to have been transferred by the firm to its partners before the expiry of the statutory period prescribed un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj184; (1968)GLR64
V.R. Shah, J.(1) This revision application raises a short question of law as to whether the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') are applicable to a case where a trustee of a public charitable trust asks for possession of the premises from a tenant on the ground that he requires it for occupation for the purposes of the trust the purposes of the trust . The opponents are the trustees of a public trust namely 'Maniar Jamat' at Ahmedabad. The suit premises originally belonged to one Bai Amina, daughter of Jusab Mohmed, and she gave the land by way of gift to a Public Trust named Maniar Jamat to make a Madresa and Jamatkhana. The opponents have brought the suit for possession of the premises from the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the premises are required for purposes of the trust. The petitioner, contested the character of the opponents as his landlords and also disputed the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1(1998)ACC39
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A cry for justice of dejected and disheartened, unsuccessful and unfortunate parents, is echoed in this appeal, who lost only young earning son, in a Fatal Railway Accident, on ill-fated day of July 18 of 1981, and who also lost the legal battle for the compensation for the untimely and premature demise of their beloved only son.A conspectus of a few relevant and material facts leading to the rise of this appeal, needs narration, at the outset, which would unfold untold tragic scenario.2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, who instituted Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1983, in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana, for compensation for the unfortunate and untimely demise of their only earning son, aged about 20, in a cruel Railway accident. Deceased Shailesh was travelling in a Delhi Mail train, proceeding from Ahmedabad towards Mehsana side, on the ill-fated day as a bona fide passenger.3. The tram accident occurred, on account of a derailment of train betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR38
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Once again the very same squalid, shocking, disgraceful and disgusting old tale of woe and pity, of fraud and the dereliction of duty, the patent modus operandi being that of the illicit 'plea-bargaining' between the learned Magistrate and the accused, resulting into the gross miscarriage of justice ! ! Once again the law and justice appears to have been perversely made to divorce against their will in the matter of statutory minimum sentence, in total defiance on the one hand of the Law on the point of minimum sentence being crystal clear, and on the other hand of the Courts, i.e., High Courts and the Supreme Court, repeatedly deprecating this unholy practice of 'plea-bargaining', the same is not given up !! If despite the High Court and the Apex Court of the country deprecating the said practice of illicit 'plea-bargaining' as illegal and unconstitutional in unmistakable terms which is even otherwise first and elementary thing, duty, principle to be known, scrupulou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj5; (2007)1GLR859(GJ)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition, though styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is in effect a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein is the original applicant of application exhibit 29 made in HMP No. 341 of 2005 while the respondent herein is the original opponent in the application. Hereinafter the parties shall be referred to as per their respective description in the application for the sake of convenience.2. The opponent during pendency of HMP No. 341 of 2005 moved an application for maintenance pendente lite under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (The Marriage Act). The applicant herein has already submitted his reply and his objections to the said application. The present application came to be moved by the petitioner-applicant under the provisions of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for a direction to the opponent to produce the following five doc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas368(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This is an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, invoking the inherent powers of this court with a view to enabling applicants to get certain remarks made by me in my judgment dated November 19, 1981, in Company Petition No. 49 of 1978 with Company Application No. 115 of 1981, expunged. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the applicants in the present application, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts leading to the aforesaid company petition which came to be disposed of by me by the aforesaid judgment. 3. Relevant facts, undisputed and/or well-established facts on record. - The present three applicants are the managing director of Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., a public limited company earlier registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and then governed by the provisions of the Companies will mention Ambica Mills Ltd. as petitioning company which had filed Company Petition No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj1; (1965)GLR778
Bhagwati, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment given by Raju, J., in Second Appeal confirming a decree passed in appeal by the District Judge, Broach, dismissing a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st June 1949. The defendant had also according to the plaintiff, executed in favour of the plaintiff, an instrument in writing dated 21st June 1949 in respect of the loan but since in view of the plaintiff the instrument appeared to be a promissory note and on that view the instrument being unstamped would be inadmissible in evidence, the plaintiff sued on the original cause of action. The defendant admitted execution of the instrument but his defence was that no moneys were lent and advanced to him against the instrument on 21st June 1949. According to the defendant the instrument ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]98ITR255(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the power of the Income-tax Officer to rectify a mistake apparent from the record of the assessment after an appeal against a part of the assessment is disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The question arises under section 35, sub-section (1), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In order to appreciate the question it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise to the petition. 2. The petitioner was at all material times a partner in a firm called M/s. Steel and Forms Work Co. The assessment of the petitioner as an individual for the assessment year 1959-60 for which the relevant account year was the financial year ending 31st March, 1959, was completed by the Income-tax Officer on 9th March, 1960, and since the firm of M/s. Steel and Forms Work Co. had not been assessed at that time, the Income-tax Officer took the share of the petitioner in the profits of the said firm at nil subject to...
Tag this Judgment!