Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR934
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The question which arises in these Revision Applications is whether it is competent to a Judge of the City Civil Court to pass a conditional order when granting leave to defend under the provisions of Rule 142 Sub-rule (3) of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules. The plaintiffs filed a suit being Summary Suit No. 1462 of 1962 against the defendants in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad to recover a sum of Rs. 32 0 alleged to be due by the defendants to the plaintiffs under certain promissory notes which the plaintiffs claimed had been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit and on the appearance being filed by the defendants a Summons for Judgment was taken out by the plaintiffs. On the Summons for Judgment the learned Judge granted unconditional leave to defend to the second defendant but so far as the first defendant was concerned the learned Judge made a conditional order granting leave to defend on c condition tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR947
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. There are several points raised in this petition but it: possible to dispose of the petition on a short ground and we will, therefore, state only so much of the facts as are necessary in order to appreciate that ground. The petitioner was at all material times the Honorary Secretary and the fourth respondent was the Chairman of the Sidhapur Taluka Vankar Audyogik Society Ltd., a Society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. It appears that the cash of the Society used to remain with the fourth respondent and out of that cash a sum of Rs. 4.000/- was retained by the fourth respondent and wsi not returned by him to the Society. An inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the Society was ordered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 28th July 1953 and the Inquiry Officer also reported that the fourth respondent was guilty of illegal retention of Rs. 4 0 and that this amount should be recovered from him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR1
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. On April 29, 1961, Sir Vijaysinhji Chhatrasinhji, the then ruler of Rajpipla State, expired leaving him surviving three sons, of whom the present petitioner was the second son. According to the petitioner, the said Sir Vijaysinhji, in accordance with the custom prevailing in the family of the rulers of Rajpipla, passed an order on August 19, 1946, which was to have effect from July 1, 1946, whereunder he granted to the petitioner, for the purpose of providing maintenance to him, three villages, namely, Amletha, Tropa and Ori, yielding an annual revenue of Rs. 15, 533, the revenue thereof and in addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 20, 467/- as and by way of cash allowance payable every year. In pursuance of that order, the said Sir Vijaysinhji, as the ruler of the Rajpipla State, issued a Sanad. The Sanad inter alia provided that the petitioner was to be the full owner of the entire revenue of the said three villages irrespective of any increase that might be caused by an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj159; (1965)GLR855
1. The original plaintiff has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Halar at Jamnagar, on the ground 'that a suit for declaration that a person is a Benamidar was not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The plaintiff had originally filed the suit against eight defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 were individuals who were partners of two firms which were joined as defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 and which firms had also some other unknown partners. Defendants Nos. 5 to 8 were Income-tax Officers The Union of India was added as a necessary party to the suit on 10th January 1948 pursuant to the order of the trial Court, dated 5th November 1957, to enable the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate the questions raised in the suit It was the plaintiff's case that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the two firms, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had been residing at Bombay and doing business there while he resided at Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)0GLR156
Bhagwati, J. 1. The petition raises the question of validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, as amended by the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961, and the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1962. 2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It is carrying on business of manufacturing cotton textiles and owns a factory situated in Ahmedabad. In its balance sheet for the year 1961 it showed as one of its liabilities a sum of Rs. 4,38,987 under the heading 'sundry creditors.' This amount included Rs. 2,37,863.85 which was made up of wages earned by the workmen in the factory but remaining undrawn by them and bonus for which no claim was made by the workmen within the prescribed time to earn the same under the condition of eligibility laid down in the relevant bonus agreements or awards and represented the total of such assumed liability from year to year eve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj149
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated February 27, 1951 which held that the claim for compensation filed by the petitioner in respect of the extinguishment of a grant in his favour fell under Section 15 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act) and for a mandamus directing the State of Gujarat to continue to pay to the petitioner and his descendants the sum of Rs. 12,522 annually, and, in the alternative, for a mandamus directing the State of Gujarat to pay to the petitioner as compensation the amount of Rs. 4,17,400, being the capitalised value of the said grant of Rs. 12,522 which came to be extinguished under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act.2. The petitioner is the descendant of one Mir Nazmuddinkhan who was the cousin of the Nawab of Surat and the Baxi of his forces in or about t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj7; (1965)GLR893
(1) The only question which is raised in this Second Appeal is about the correctness of the decision recorded by the two Courts that the instruments, dated 30th December 1951, was a promissory note within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (XI of 1899). (Hereinafter called 'the Act') and as such, inadmissible in evidence plaintiff Appellant brought the suit from which the Second Appeal arises, for recovering a sum of Rs.769-4-0 from defendant - respondent. The claim was based on the aforesaid document dated 30th December, 1951. When the document was sought to be got admitted in the trail Court, defendant raised an objection that as the document was a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2 sub-section (22) of the Act and as it was not stamped a required by Art.49 of the act, the same was not admissible in evidence under S.35 of the Act. This contention was upheld by the trail court and, on that finding, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed plaintiff preferred an appeal to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR893
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. The only question which is raised in this Second Appeal is about the correctness of the decision recorded by the two Courts that the instrument dated 30th December 1951 was a promissory note within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (XI of 1899) (hereafter called the Act) and as such inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff-appellant brought the suit from which the Second Appeal arises for recovering a sum of Rs. 769-4-0 from defendant respondent The claim was based on the aforesaid document dated 20th December 1951 When the document was sought to be got admitted in the trial Court defendant raised an objection that as the document was a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2 Sub-section (22) of the Act and as it was not stamped as required by Article 49 of the Act the same was not admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Act. This contention was upheld by the trial Court and on that finding the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR76; (1965)IILLJ636Guj
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand of a case passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1961, on 7 August 1963, on his reversing the decision of the trial court disposing of the suit upon a preliminary issue. The issue was as regards the maintainability of a civil suit for damages by a workman in a civil court in respect of an injury to his eye resulting from the alleged negligence of his employer and the persons appointed by the employer to provide timely and efficient medical aid for treatment of the injury received by the workman in the course of his employment, when the workman had allegedly instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Judge has found that the suit as framed was maintainable and his finding is based mainly on the ground that the suit was one for damages suffered by the workman as a result of the negligence or want of care on the part of the employer and the do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1966]61ITR241(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the Commissioner raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 15C of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in its application to a registered firm. It arises out of an assessmet made on the assessee, a registered firm, for the assessment year 1961-62the corresponding account year being Samvat year 2016. The assessee at all material times carries on business of extracting oil from oil-crakes and the oil-mill of the assessee was admittedly an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 15C. In the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee claimed that out of its total income which was determined at Rs. 5,24,081, a sum of Rs. 94,392 was exempt from tax under section 15C on the ground that it represented profits derived by the assessee from the industrial undertaking to the extent of 6 per cent. of the capital employed in the undertaking. This claims was allowed by the Income-tax O...
Tag this Judgment!