Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2000]243ITR409(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench C, has referred the following three questions for our opinion, arising out of ITA Nos. 2510, 2511 and 2512/Ahd/1981, for the asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. At the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, the assessee was under an obligation after introduction of s. 2(15A) of the IT Act, 1961, to disclose in his income-tax return the fact of his marriage with his brother's widow in spite of the legal position regarding relationship between the assessee and the minor sons of the widow by her former marriage ?' At the instance of the Revenue : '2. Whether, the minors were not the step-children of the assessee ?' '3. Whether, the share income of the minors could not be included under s. 64 in the income of the assessee ?' 2. The conspectus, and short spectrum of facts leading to the rise of this reference, may be articulated, at the outset, with a view to appreciate the merits of the reference and the challenge against it. 3. New Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj157; 1970CriLJ1090; (1970)0GLR781
Desai, J.1. Both these matters have been referred to a Division Bench by our brother Sarela, J., on account of the questions of law raised. The order in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 95 of 1969 which is challenged before us was passed by Mr. D. J. Dave, as Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol on 17-12-68 and the order in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 102 of 1969 was passed by Mr. M. P. Thakar, Special Judge, Ahmedabad City, on 28-2-1969. These two orders were passed in Special Case N. 5 of 1968 and Special Case NO. 15 of 1968 pending before the respective Special Judges.2. In Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 95 of 1969, the facts are that the Government appointed Mr. D. J. Dave, Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Naol, to be a Special Judge for the District of Ahmedabad (Rural) to try the offnces specified in Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, by notification dated June 30, 1966. Then by notification dated May 13, 1968, Mr. D. J. Dava was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj282; 1967CriLJ1634; (1968)0GLR74
Vakil, J.(1) This criminal appeal is filed by the State against the order of the City Magistrate, 10th Court, Ahmedabad, in Summary Case No. 541 of 1964, whereby the two respondents were acquitted of the charges under Section 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. Before this appeal could be heard, on 13th June 1965, Respondent No. 1 (Original accused No. 1) has died. His death certificate is produced and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. G.T. Nanavati, appearing for the Appellant - State, concedes that Respondent No. 1 has died. So we have now to consider the appeal against Respondent No. 2 only.(2) On the 12th of December 1963, Police Inspector B.F. Jadeja, suspecting that in the house of deceased Respondent No. 1, he and Respondent No. 2 were gaming, raided the house in the presence of the Panchas. The prosecution case was that they were found taking Satta-betting i.e. gambling on American futures. Both the Respondents were found sitting on a carpet. Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2009Guj184
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. ADMIT. Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1, who is the main contesting party. Though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 have refused to accept the notice. However, the main contesting party is respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Appeal From Order is taken up for final hearing today.3. Heard Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -original defendant No. 5 and Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff at length and perused the impugned order as well as Paper-Book supplied by the learned advocates.4. Present Appeal From Order under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR705
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The present revision application is filed against the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge (SD) Valsad on 31.7.2000 in an application below ex. 24 in Special Civil Suit No. 195 of 1997 whereby the application filed by the present petitioner/defendant no. 4 for dismissal of the suit for non compliance of the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (SD) Valsad in an application under Order 6 Rule 5 of CPC seeking further and better particulars from the present respondents no. 1 to 3-ori. plaintiffs, is rejected.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision application are as under:3. That the respondent no. 4 in the present revision application who is the original defendant no. 1 had allegedly published a report in November 1996 Authored by Mr. Bob Edward and Dr.David Santillo on the chlorine Industry and its related pollution entitled 'The Stranger'. The respondent no. 1 being one of the firsts producing Chlorine etc. was mentioned in the said report....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]197ITR385(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants this court to quash and set aside the order dated August 6, 1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also the order dated March 7, 1991, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132(12) of the Act. 2. On April 9, 1990, during combing operations by the police inspector of Ellisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, the residential premises of the petitioner were searched. The police found in the house of the petitioner Rs. 41,80,000. The petitioner stated the police that it was his income from satta betting business. The police inspector, therefore, seized the same under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Pursuant to the information received, the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) authorised the requisitioning officer to require the police inspector to deliver the seize...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2005Guj293
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1997 rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 1997 by the learned Joint District Judge, Banaskantha District at Palanpur by which the appeal filed by deceased respondent who is represented through his heirs and legal representatives in this appeal came to be allowed and thereby the judgment and final decree dated 2.5.1997 recorded in Regular Civil Suit No.191 of 1966 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)., Palanpur decreeing the suit filed by the appellant for an amount of Rs.1,04,838.75 Ps. together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization on the basis of the Commissioner's report at Ex.124 came to be quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)., Palanpur to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties and after considering the ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)2GLR1093
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Both these appeals and Civil Applications filed in it are disposed of by this common judgment as they are arising out of the judgment and order dated 28.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court (Coram : M.S. Shah, J.) in Special Civil Application No.8736 of 2002.2. As per the FIR lodged by Shri Mahendrabhai Kothawala on 4.4.2001 at about 1.45 p.m. Shri Sureshbhai Bhandari came on his scooter and parked it near Dena Bank, situated at Reshamwala Market, Surat. At that time, Shri Nagjibhai, Watchman of the bank requested him to park his scooter on the other side as it was causing obstruction in carrying cash box. Thereupon, Sureshbhai got angry and abused Shri Nagjibhai by his father. Nagjibhai told him not to abuse him as he is watchman of the Bank. Heated exchange of words took place between them, when they were going inside the bank. Nagjibhai was following Sureshbhai. That time he heard loud noise. He went inside and saw Sureshbhai lying profusely b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered a draft amendment. The amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.2. Rule. Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.3. Considering the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, the petition was taken up for final hearing and is finally disposed of by this judgment.4. By this petition, the petitioner, a Public Limited Company, seeks the following substantive relief:"[10] Under the circumstances, petitioners most respectfully pray that:[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, quashing Detention Memo No.1/2010-11 dated 19.9.2010 (Annexure-G) and Seizure Memo dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure-H);[A-1] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)4GLR3672
M.R. Calla, J.1. We have before us two sets of First Appeals. The first set of First Appeals is a group of 13 First Appeals i.e. First Appeals No. 2129 to 2134 of 1995 (6) and First Appeals No. 2136 of 1995 to 2142 of 1995 (7) filed on behalf of the lands owners - claimants. The other set of First Appeals is a group of 14 First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 2618 of 1995 to 2631 of 1995 filed by the Acquiring Body i.e. Gujarat Housing Board. These 13 First Appeals, as above, filed by the land owners i.e. claimants and the 14 First Appeals filed by the Acquiring Body i.e. Gujarat Housing Board, i.e. 27 Appeals in all, are all directed against the common judgment and award dated 29th of October, 1994, passed by the Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in land Acquisition Cases No. 633 of 1988 to 646 of 1988, Land Acquisition Case No. 641 of 1988 being the main case. The land owners claimants as well as the Acquiring Body are aggrieved against this Common judgment and order dated 29th o...
Tag this Judgment!