Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR511
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. A decree has been passed by the learned District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, in Divorce Suit No. 1 of 1961 on 1st September 1961, by which the learned Judge has declared the marriage between the petitioner Kanku and the respondent Shanabhai null and void, subject to the declaration being confirmed by this Court under Section 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter called 'the Act'). The learned District Judge by his letter, dated 1st March 1962, has sent the proceedings in the suit to this Court for confirmation. The petition, which was numbered in the District Court as Suit No. 1 of 19 1, was made by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act. It is common ground that the petitioner and the respondent were married about 14 years ago under Hindu marriage rites. The petitioner first filed Suit No. 4 of 1960 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 19SS, for dissolution of that marriage on the ground that the husband h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1980)2GLR322
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This second appeal challenges a preliminary decree for redemption as passed by the learned Civil Judge J.D. Bhuj in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and as confirmed by the learned District Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in appeal No. 139 of 1973.2. The controversy between the parties lies in a very narrow compass and that is, as to whether the respondent plaintiffs are entitled to full redemption of the suit mortgage or whether the decree for redemption has to be confined only to the alleged limited share of the original plaintiff Rajgor Bhavanji Vishanji in the equity of redemption and whether the defendant-appellant is entitled to take as full owner alleged 1/2 share in the suit property on account of his having purchased the alleged right of one Bai Jashubai in the suit property.3. The facts leading to the present litigation may now be stated in brief.4. On Rajgor Bhavanji Vishanji had acquired the suit immovable property which is situated in Juna Hathikhana in Bhuj-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(Guj)583
K.A. Puj, J.Since common issue is involved in all these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Settlement Commission, respondent No. 2 herein, on 20-3-2003, under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 withdrawing the reduction or waiver of interest granted by the Settlement Commission under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, while passing the orders under section 245D(4) of the Act on 31-3-1999.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are as under :The petitioners have approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of their cases in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Settlement Commission had passed orders on 31-3-1999 under section 245D(4) in respect of each of the petitioners, inter alia, waiving and/or reducing interest under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR436
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These two appeals arise from a common judgment and involve common questions of facts and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by me by this common judgment.2. The plaintiff had filed two suits against the defendants for recovery of two sums of Rs. 8, 015-14-0 and Rs. 7, 544-14-0 as and by way of damages due to abnormal delay in transit and consequent fall in market in respect of the goods ordered by him. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff Manilal Chhaganlal Desai was the sole owner of business running in the name and style of A. M. Brothers at Jetpur. The plaintiff had booked two consignments of 55 and 50 cases of tea from Jadabpur in West Bengal which is known as Eastern Railway for conveyance and safe delivery to the plaintiff at Jetpur station which is in the Western Railway. The first consignment of 55 boxes weighed 4950 lbs. while the second consignment of 50 boxes weighed 4750 lbs. The rate as per the invoices for both those consignments was Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2002]122TAXMAN165(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain of Rs. 19,018 was exigible to tax 'The assessee in respect of the previous year which was Samvat Year 2036 (29-10-1979 to 7-11-1980, relevant to assessment year 1981-82), had filed return of income on 20-6-1981 declaring income of Rs. 29,650. The assessee's income was from salary, house property, honorarium from the Municipal Corporation and short-term capital gain on the sale of building.2. On 23-3-1979, the assessee had purchased a new house for Rs. 45,000 on which he spent Rs. 9,650 and sold it on 14-5-1980 for Rs. 55,000 claiming deduction of Rs. 54,650 and he paid tax on capital gain amount of Rs. 350. The Income Tax Officer noticed that in the earlier assessment year 1980-81, the assessee was given exemption of Rs. 19,01...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR812
D.P. Desai, J.1. This matter arises out of an order passed on an interlocutory application for an ad-interim injunction under order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by the opposite party for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and a person in possession of a field Survey No. 38, for confirmation of his possession of that field and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant (present petitioner) from interfering with plaintiff's lawful possession of the suit field. This very field was the subject matter of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), wherein the learned Magistrate by his order dated September 25, 1970 declared that the petitioner (defendant) was in actual possession of the land in dispute on June 22, 1970. The learned Magistrate also declared that the petitioner was entitled to possession thereof until evicted in due course of law. The opposite-party i. e. present plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1981Guj15; (1981)0GLR206
Sheth, J.1. The Petitioner is the Executive Trustee of Consumer Education and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the 'Centre' for the sake of brevity) at Ahmedabad. He has filed this petition as a citizen of India and also in his capacity as the Executive Trustee. The Centre published a study entitled 'A fraud on policy-holder'. It is not disputed that it was a scientific research made into the working of the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for the sake of brevity). This study tried to portray and establish the discriminatory practices which the Corporation is alleged to have adopted and which adversely affect a large number of policy-holders their investment policies, their expense ratio, availability of term insurance and other cognate matters. Mr. N. C. Krishnan who is a Director of the Corporation wrote a reply to it. His reply was published in The Hindu on 6th November 1978. In that reply, he tried to challenge the conclusions reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- Issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the District Development Officer, Banaskantha. 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by order dated 02.03.2015, whereby the petitioner is declared disqualified, after having been elected to the post of Sarpanch. 4. The said order dated 02.03.2015 is passed in light of the provision under Sections 30(1)(m) read with 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order is unjust, improper and arbitrary. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the time when the election was notified and at the time when the petitioner got elected to the post of Sarpanch, the petitioner did not have more than two children...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order (1) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the cooption of respondent No.2 as co-opt member of the Dental Faculty of Bhavnagar University. (2) Heard Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Rushabh Shah and Ms.Avani Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Thacker, with Mr. Shivang A. Thacker, learned counsel for respondent No.1 “University, Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Hemang Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Anshin H. Desai, with Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. (3) The main issue involved in this petition pertains to cooption of respondent No.2 as a member of the Dental Faculty of the respondent “University. It appears from the record of the petition that vide Notification dated 12.07.2011, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This Special Civil Application has been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Jayant Patel and Mohinder Pal, JJ. under the following circumstances :- 1.1 The writ-petitioner had filed this Special Civil Application for quashing and setting aside the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act hereafter), dated 30th January, 2008 and the further Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 29th April 2008 by which , the land of the petitioner bearing original Survey No.25/2 and 25/3 and 25/4 (now final plot No.50) was acquired. 1.2 When the matter was at the final hearing stage before the referring Bench, the said Bench decided to call for the original file from the State-respondent and it appears from the original file of the State Government that after the proposal was received by the Government, there were various correspondences, but the most important aspect was that the State G...
Tag this Judgment!