Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj112; (1964)GLR705; (1965)ILLJ567Guj
Shelat, C.J. 1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the reference dated 29 July, 1961 made under S. 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, by respondent 2 association to the industrial court and the order made by the industrial court negativing certain preliminary issues raised by the petitioner-association and for restraining the industrial court from proceeding further with the reference. The reference was made in the following circumstances. 2. Under the standing orders settled under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which are determinative under S. 40(2) of the Act in respect of matters enumerated in Sch. I thereto including 'conditions, procedure and authority to grant leave' and in particular standing orders 11 and 12 and binding on the petitioners and respondent 2 association, it was provided that service for a total period of twelve months in a textile mill should quality an operative for a total period of one m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj215; (1965)0GLR137
Shelat, C.J.(1) The common questions arise in this case and the following petitions Nos. 752 of 1961, 1054 of 1963, 639 of 1963 and 917 of 1963 and therefore, it would be expedient to have disposed of together. In the last three petitions Nos. 1054 of 1963, 639 and 917 of 1963 however, some additional questions are raised and therefore, they will have to be dealt with separately. The two questions that are common to all these petitions are (1) whether the petitioners are manufacturers of cotton fabrics as defined in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder, and (2) even if they are so, whether the cotton fabrics in question which they are said to have manufactured or got manufactured, attract the provisions of Rules 7 and 9 of these rules or whether they enjoy exemption granted under the notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of those rulesNo. 751 of 1961(2) In this petition, we are concerned with Tarun Trading Co., a proprietary concern c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR228
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals which are 306 in number arise out of several suits filed by various rate-payers against the Ahmedabad Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality) in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ahmedabad. The suits related to the levy of tax on open lands for the official years 1947-48 1948 1949 and 1950 Prior to 1st July 1950 the Municipality was a Borough Municipality governed by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Boroughs Act). There were in force during the period upto 31st March 1947 the Valuation and Taxation Rules made by the Municipality under Section 58(j) and sanctioned by the Government by their Resolution dated 14th February 1931 under Section 76 prescribing various taxes leviable by the Municipality. It appears that sometime prior to 20th February 1947 the Municipality at a General Meeting passed a Resolution selecting tax on open lands for being levied by the Municipality and approving ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)10GLR1041; [1965]55ITR46(Guj)
ORDER : 1. That the judgment and order, dated the 15th February, 1955, of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Notice of Motion in Income-tax Reference No. 28 of 1954 be and is hereby set aside and that the said High Court Do restore to its file the aforesaid Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on the question raised in the notice of motion and indicated hereinabove, viz., 'Whether, on the facts of the case, a portion, viz., 5%, of the selling agency commission of 12 1/2% received by the assessee-company from Messrs. Ciba (India) Ltd., or the portion thereof which was not expanded in the course of the carrying on of the selling agency business is exempt from tax under section 4(3) (vi) of the Act' and that the said High Court on receipt of the said statement of the case Do hear and dispose of the reference in accordance with law. 2. THAT the cost of this appeal SHALL be costs in the reference.' 7. By the time the order was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1965]57ITR58(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This reference arises out of reassessment of the assessee for the assessment years. 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47, the relevant previous years being Samvat years 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively. The reassessment proceedings were adopted having recourse to the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act of 1922. The facts for all the three assessment years are similar and hence it is possible to take the facts relevant to the assessment year 1944-45 as typical. That was also the way in which the case; was presented to us by the learned Advocate-General. 2. The assessee, Shantilal Punjabhai, used to be assessed in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1944-1945, he filed his returns in which he included his share of profit in the firm of Messrs. Bharat Cloth Agency. The assessee, at the material time, was a member of the Hindu undivided family known as Punjabhai Deepchand. In the course of the assessment proceedings of that family also for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR282
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This group of five writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises common questions about the constitutional validity of a certain Order to be presently mentioned and its true construction. The facts leading up to the presentation of those petitions though not the same are similar. Mr. Nanavati concedes that the ultimate result of these petitions does not depend upon individual facts therein but depends entirely upon the decision reached on the questions of law. Therefore it is not necessary for us to set out the facts obtaining in each of the five petitions. However in order to understand the points of law involved it is necessary that we should state the facts of one of those petitions. We propose to set out the facts obtained in Special Civil Application No. 592 of 1964. Petitioner No. 1 therein is a partnership Firm of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner. Petitioner Firm placed an order on 4th July 1964 with M/s. Milap and Co. Rajkot fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj106
1. This reference arises out of re-assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1944-1945, 1945-1946 and 1946-1947, the relevant previous years being Samvat Years 1999. 2000 and 2001 respectively. The reassessment proceedings were adopted having recourse to the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act of 1922. The facts for all the three assessment years are similar and hence, it is possible to take the facts relevant to the assessment year 1944-1945 as typical. That was also the way in which the case was presented to us by the learned Advocate General.2. The assessce Shantilal Punjabhai used to he assessed in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1944-1945, he filed his returns in which he included his share of profits in the firm of Messrs. Bharat Cloth Agency. The asscssee, at the material time, was a member of the Hindu undivided family known as Punjabhai Deepchand. In the course of the assessment proceedings of that family also for the assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1966]61ITR30(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This reference involves two questions, one relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 33(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the other relates to the status of the firm of Messrs. F. Y. Khambhaty which carried on business at Kano in Nigeria and in which the assessee was a partner along with one Lahorewala and was having a share of sixty per cent. as against the share of forty per cent. of the said Lahorewala. The first question was referred to this court by the Tribunal in the reference made by the Tribunal on June 10, 1960, while the second question has been referred to us as a result of an order passed by this court on November 29, 1962, in Income-tax Application No. 13 of 1962. 2. The two questions arise as a result of assessments having been made against the assessee, F. Y. Khambhaty and the said firm of Kano, hereinafter referred to as the Kano firm, for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54. The relative previous years, in so far as the assessee' s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj116; (1965)GLR458
1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal directed against the decree, dated 28th January 1960, passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1958 from the decree in Civil Suit No. 1702 of 1956 by which the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the decree passed by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad, dismissing the suit of plaintiff-appellant with costs. Plaintiff is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendants-respondents are Union of India, State of Gujarat, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, and Provident Funds Inspector, Ahmedabad. The main dispute between plaintiff and defendants is about the applicability to plaintiff of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, Act No. 19 of 1952 (here after called 'the Act'). In order to understand the dispute between the parties, it will be useful to state a few facts. At the relevant time,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj175; (1965)GLR554
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition challenges a determination made by the Collector under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The determination came to he made by the Collector under the following circumstances. The first and second petitioners owned a piece of land admeasuring 55 square yards situate at Lal Darwaja in the city of Ahmedabad. They agreed to grant a lease of the said piece of land to the third petitioner on the terms and conditions contained in a draft indenture of lease which was agreed upon between the parties. The third petitioner brought the draft indenture of lease to the Collector and applied to have the opinion of the Collector as to the duty with which it was chargeable under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. This application was made on 20th June 1961 and was accompanied by the requisite fee directed by the Collector. On receipt of the application, it appears, the Collector felt doubt as to the amount of duty with which the draft indenture of lease was c...
Tag this Judgment!