Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1966]59ITR615(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This special civil application challenges the validity of the notice issued on December 16, 1958, in respect of the assessment year 1949-50 under section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922. 2. The petitioner was assessed as an individual on the total income of Rs. 6,482 for the assessment year 1950-51, the relative accounting year being Samvat year 2005. His major source of income during that year was his share in a partnership called the Nipani Tobacco Stores. During the relevant accounting period, i.e., Samvat year 2005, the petitioner had brought in capital of Rs. 35,502 into that partnership. On January 23, 1957, the Income-tax Officer served a notice upon the petitioner under section 34(1) asking the petitioner to submit his return of income for the assessment year 1950-51. In pursuance of that notice, the petitioner filed his return of income indicating Rs. 6,482 as his total income in accordance with the original order of assessment. The respondent, however, held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR698
J.C. Shah, J.1. The question which falls to be determined in these appeals is whether in exercise of the power under Section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Court has authority to summon a person accused of an offence before it to produce a document or a thing in his possession. The words of the clause are general: they contain no express limitation nor do they imply any restriction excluding the person accused of an offence from its operation. In terms the section authorises any Court or any officer in charge of a police-station to issue a summons or written order to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be requiring such person to attend and produce it at the time and place indicated in the summons or order. The scheme of the Code also appears to be consistent with that interpretation. Chapter VI of the Code deals with process to compel appearance. A Court may under Section 68 issue a summons for the attendance of any person whether a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj47; (1965)GLR433; [1965]58ITR559(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition is directed against a notice dated 13th November 1663 issued by the Income-tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward-G, Ahmedabad, under Section 148 of theIncome-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The notice is impugned as invalid on three grounds which we shall presently state. But in order to understand and appreciate those grounds, it is necessary to state briefly a few facts. The petitioner was assessed to tax as an individual for the assessment year 1947-48 and his assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward E, Circle II, Ahmedabad, by an order of assessment dated 31st January 1952. The Income-tax Officer thereafter received information that a certain profit alleged to have been made by one Natwarlal Manilal Pandit on sale of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 63 at Vastrapur really belonged to the petitioner since Natwarlal Manilal Pandit was merely a benamidar of the petitioner and that the said profit had escaped assessment by r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR512
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants in the court of the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Godhra, for specific performance of an agreement of lease executed on 6th November 1952, and as deceased Haji Badruddin has committed a breach thereof, for a permanent injunction restraining him from recovering a sum of Rs. 6,000/- advanced to them under a mortgage-deed dated 11th November 1952 and for costs of the suit against the original defendant Haji Badruddin Musaji Poonawala, as the owner and Vabivatdar of a Firm in the name of Haji Badruddin Musaji Poonawala and Sons. On his death having taken place during the pendency of the suit, his heirs and legal representatives have been joined as defendants.2. The plaintiffs-appellants are brothers and they owned a house situated in Municipal Lots Nos. 137 and 138 at Godhra. During the communal riots which took place in 1952 that house was burnt. The original defendant Haji Badruddin Mus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR632
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for quashing the order of the District Magistrate Jamnagar dated April 7, 1964 directing the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 and the order of the State Government dated June 2 1964 confirming the same and for a direction for the release of the petitioner from detention at present in the Central Jail at Rajkot.2. At the material time the petitioner was the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat of village Kharedi and had been so acting ever since 1956 having been elected as such from time to time. He was also the chairman of the Kharedi Multi-purpose Co-operative Society and an elected member of the Taluka Kalawad Panchayat as also a member of the District Panchayat Jamnagar District. As a member of the Swatantra Party he contested during the last general elections as a candidate of that party.3. By his order dated April 7 1964 the District Magistrate directed that the petitioner be detained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj244; (1965)GLR522
Mehta, J. 1. This petition Is directed against the order, dated November 28, 1989, suspending the petitioner's arms licence and the order dated November 22. 1960. cancelling the same 2. The petitioner is an Indian citizen residing at Hatholi in Kaira District and is carrying on extensive cultivation in vast areas. He was granted a fire-arm licence No. POL. MD. 120 enabling him to own, possess and hold a Bridge-Load gun for self protection and the said licence was to expire on December 31, 1960 During the pendency of one criminal complaint filed against the petitioner by one Chhotabhai Jivabhai under Sections 143, 467, 342 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code on or about March 14, 1958, the respondent No. 8, the District Magistrate of Kaira. by the order, dated November 23, 1959, suspended the petitioner's licence on the ground of security of public peace. The material part of the said order at Annexure 'A' it as under: 'Fire arms licence in form XVI bearing No. MD 120 for a B. L. gum for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR649
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. A short question relating to the applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act arises in this Letters Patent Appeal. An application was made to the District Court Kaira at Nadiad under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 for setting aside a decision given by the Charity Commissioner in two appeals Nos. 118 of 1954 and 126 of 1954 holding that certain properties belonged to a public trust. One of the contentions raised before the learned Extra Assistant Judge Nadiad who heard the application was that the application was barred by limitation inasmuch as the decision of the Charity Commissioner was given on 29th October 1954 while the application was made on 11th January 1955 more than sixty days from the date of the decision of the Charity Commissioner. Section 72 of the Act requires that an application to set aside the decision of the Charity Commissioner must be made within sixty days from the date of the decision. The application was obviously made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR477
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These four appeals arise out of an application made by the Official Liquidator of the Bombay Baroda Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) against its former Officers under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 and Section 543 of the Companies Act 1956 The Company was incorporated under the Baroda Companies Act and carried on business of life insurance with its Head Office at Baroda and branches in Bombay and Indore. Opponent No. 1 was at all material times the Manager of the Bombay Office; Opponent No. 2 was the General Manager and Opponents Nos. 3 to 5 were the Directors of the Company. As the financial position of the Company was unsatisfactory the Controller of Insurance presented a petition for winding up the Company in the District Court Baroda. In the petition an application was made for appointment of a provisional Liquidator and on the application a provisional Liquidator was appointed by the District Court on 28th April 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj1; (1965)GLR778
Bhagwati, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment given by Raju, J., in Second Appeal confirming a decree passed in appeal by the District Judge, Broach, dismissing a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st June 1949. The defendant had also according to the plaintiff, executed in favour of the plaintiff, an instrument in writing dated 21st June 1949 in respect of the loan but since in view of the plaintiff the instrument appeared to be a promissory note and on that view the instrument being unstamped would be inadmissible in evidence, the plaintiff sued on the original cause of action. The defendant admitted execution of the instrument but his defence was that no moneys were lent and advanced to him against the instrument on 21st June 1949. According to the defendant the instrument ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR778
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment given by Raju J. in Second Appeal confirming a decree passed in appeal by the District Judge Broach dismissing a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 5 100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st June 1949. The defendant had also according to the plaintiff executed in favour of the plaintiff an instrument in writing dated 21st June 1949 in respect of this loan but since in the view of the plaintiff the instrument appeared to be a promissory note and on that view the instrument being unstamped would be inadmissible in evidence the plaintiff sued on the original cause of action. The defendant admitted execution of the instrument but his defence was that no moneys were lent and advanced to him against the instrument on 21 June 1949. According to the defendant the instrument though dated 21 June 1949 was actually executed on 14th June 1949 and the circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!