Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj265; [1964(9)FLR394]; (1964)0GLR649; (1965)ILLJ54Guj
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal raises some questions relating to the construction of certain provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The facts giving rise to this appeal are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows. The first appellants are a limited company carrying on business of manufacturing chemicals at Mithapur in Jamnagar District. The second appellant is the Works Manager of the factory of the first appellants at Mithapur while the third respondent is the Divisional Engineer in Charge of the power house of the first appellants. The respondent was employed as a clerk in the establishment of the first appellants since and May 1950 and at the material time he was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 80/- per month plus Dearness Allowance of Rs. 69/- per month, his total emoluments thus being Rs. 149/- per month. The industrial establishment of the first appellants being an industrial establishment to which the Industrial Empl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1965]16STC973(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This petition raises an interesting question relating to the construction of section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 1946, and in the event of the construction contended for on behalf of the State being accepted, challenges the validity of the section the ground of infraction of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. In order to appreciate the various questions arising in the petition, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the facts on which the petition is founded. The facts are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows :- 2. The petitioners are dealers carrying on business in art silk, cotton and handloom cloth and at all material times they held a certificate of registration under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the period 26th January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950, which we shall for the sake of convenience describe as the first period, the petitioners effected various sales outsi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)0GLR746; [1965]56ITR621(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. These petitions involve common questions of law and are founded on the same facts and it could, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. Certain notices were issued against the petitioners by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ahmedabad, on 31st January, 1962, under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The reason for issuing the notices was that, according to Income-tax Officer, the following income of each petitioner had escaped assessment in the assessment year mentioned against the respective incomes by reason of the omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for such assessment year : Rs. 41,000 in the assessmentyear 1943-44.)Each of the petitioners in )Special Civil Applications ) Rs. 91,575 in the assessmentNos. 370, 371 and 372 1962. ) year 1946-47.Rs. 36,535 in the assessmentyear 1950-51) Rs. 84,520 in the assessmentThe petitioner in Special ) year 1943-44.Civil Applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj302; 1965CriLJ753; (1964)GLR897
Vakil, J. (1) The appellant Himatsingh Bhadarsingh, a Rajput was tried for the murder of a Bhil girl Jivi on 16th of Aril 1962 and was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge at Broach in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1962. He was also convicted for having committed the offence under section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2) The prosecution case may be briefly stated. The appellant was a resident of village Rampura in Taluka Rajpipla of Broach District. He was employed as a teacher in the primary school at village Nava Vaghpura, which was also known as Jitpara. Between these villages, there was a village of Sengpura in which lived deceased Jivi with her parents Shaikhji Raysng and mother Uji. The appellant used to frequently visit the house of Shakhji Raysang on his way back from school and even occasionally stayed at night with them. He had de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)0GLR804
1. During the course of my experience at the bar and on the Bench I have come across very few petitions under section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, which have been brought to a conclusion. The remedy under section 397 or 398 as a weapon in the shareholders' armoury has proved more potent when brandished in terrorem than when actually used to strike and it has, therefore, in most cases served as an effective threat to induce those in control to behave reasonably towards all interests and in some cases where those in control have not behaved reasonably and the remedy has been invoked, the proceedings have mostly terminated in a compromise securing the interests sought to be prejudiced by those in control. This petition has been an exception and the only reason I can see for its having run its full course is that there is absolutely no merit in it. I shall immediately proceed to state the facts giving rise to the petition. The facts are many and to some extent disputed and it is,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)GLR865; [1964]54ITR271(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. A very interesting question of law arises on this petition. The question is whether an order under section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood after its amendment by the Finance Act, 1955, can be made at any time or whether it is governed by the time-limit specified in section 34(3). The facts giving rise to this petition are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The first petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of transporting goods and has its registered office at Jamnagar. Though the first petitioner is a public limited company, it is not a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A. The second petitioner is the managing director of the first petitioner. The relevant accounting years of the first petitioner corresponding to the assessment year 1957-58 was the financial year ending 31st March, 1957. The profit of the first petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58, according to its profit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj275; (1964)GLR988
Mehta, J.1. This group of eight Civil Revision Applications involves one or the other of the two important questions under the Agricultural Debtors Relief Act as under:(1)Whether the heirs of the deceased debtor can continue the applicants for adjustment of debts under section 4 of the Act? (2) Whether the heirs of a mortgagor and the purchaser of the equity of redemption in case of a usufructuary mortgage, in which there is no clause of personal liability, could make an application for adjustment of debt under section 4 of the Bombay Act or the Saurashtra Act?* * * * * * * * * * * *(2) To appreciate the contentions urged before u, it would be proper to consider at the outset the scheme of the Act. The preamble of the Act states the Act is meant to give relief to agricultural debtors and for certain other purposes specified therein. Section 2(4) defines 'debt'. Section 2(5) defines a 'debtor' to mean an individual person or an individual Hindu family as unit. The debtor's definition in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj6
Miabhoy, J.1. Civil Revision Application No. 826 of 1000 is made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Small Cause Suit No. 170 of 1958. That suit was brought by petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1099-74 nP. on the allegation that the opponent--Union of India which was, at the relevant time, the owner of the Western and the Central Railways had failed to discharge its duty as a bailee in respect of a part of a consignment, booked from Bhopal to Broach. The Union of India contested the suit on a number of grounds. The ground material to he mentioned for the purposes of this revision petition is that petitioner was not entitled to sue on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to mention the other defences of the Union because it is conceded by Mr. Majumdar that those other defences would fall to be considered only if a finding is reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)5GLR879
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. Civil Revision Application No. 826 of 1960 is made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Small Cause Suit No. 370 of 1958. That suit was brought by petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1099-74 nP. on the allegation that the opponent Union of India which was at the relevant time the owner of the Western and the Central Railways had failed to discharge its duty as a bailee in respect of a part of a consignment booked from Bhopal to Broach. The Union of India contested the suit on a number of grounds The ground material to be mentioned for the purposes of this revision petition is that the petitioner was not entitled to sue on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to mention the other defences of the Union because it is conceded by Mr. Majmudar that those other defences would fall to be considered only if a finding is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)5GLR847
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These two appeals arise from a common order passed on 11th of April 1960 by the learned District Judge Ahmedabad in Civil Appeals Nos. 370 of 1958 and 371 of 1958 by which he allowed the appeals with costs set aside the decrees of the trial Court in Civil Suits Nos. 529 of 1956 and 273 of 1957 and remanded the suits for hearing and deciding them on merits. The appellant in both the High Court appeals is the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad the original defendant (hereinafter called Corporation). In appeal No. 77 of 1960 the respondents are the heirs of one Premchand Mahasukhram the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 273 of 1957 (hereinafter called plaintiff Premchand). In appeal No. 78 of 1960 the respondent is the Rustom Jehangir Vakil Mills Company Limited the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 529 of 1956 (hereinafter called the Mills) A common point of law arose in both the District Court appeals. Therefore the learned District Judge disposed of...
Tag this Judgment!