Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1256; (1975)1GLR313
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The Division Bench consisting of D. A. Desai and A. N. Surti, JJ., has referred the following question to & larger Bench which has now been placed before us:Who would be the appointing authority in respect of a servant belonging to the State Service prior to his allocation to the Panchayat Service on his allocation to Panchayat Service becoming final and on his becoming a member of the Panchayat Service and who, accordingly, would be competent to remove him from service ?2. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been taken up before us in this appeal, a few facts need be stated. In Special Case No. 1 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Amreli, two accused were put up for trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Out of the two accused, accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and also to fine. As re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR289
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This Appeal arises out of the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Baroda Region, under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, registering the public trust known as 'Dadabhai Trust' and holding that agricultural lands bearing Section Nos. 432, 433, 434 and 461 of the village Kholwad, taluka Kamrej of Surat district, are the lands belonging to the said trust. The appellants claim to be the tenants over the lands in question and they have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the decision given by the Assistant Judge at Surat under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act in Misc. Application No. 64/67. The appellants have in this appeal challenged the findings that the lands mentioned above are the lands belonging to the above referred trust.2. Short facts of the case are that it is an undisputed fact that before the above referred trust was created on 31st December, 1956 one Dayabhai Nathubhai, was cultivating these lands as a tenant. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj116
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the original defendant - Union of India - against the order passed by the learned Civil judge, junior Division, Dhrangadhra, in Civil Suit No. 63 of 1971, filed by the plaintiff-opponent against the petitioner for refund of an amount of Rs. 2,107.30 paise. The learned trial Judge decided issues Nos: 4 and 5 as preliminary issues and they have been decided against the petitioner. Those issues read as under:'Issue No. 4: Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as alleged by the defendant?Issue No. 5: Whether no notice of claim was given by the plaintiff as required in law? If so, whether the present suit is tenable?'The trial Court has held that it has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is also held that no claim notice as contemplated under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was necessary as it was not a case of recovery of over charges. Non-giving o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR174
M.U. Shah, J.1. The Petitioner herein is the original plaintiff who had filed Civil Suit No. 1521 of 1957 in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. The suit was filed on 31-8-1967. It was a suit for compensation and damages for non delivery of the suit consignment of 20 drums of Silicate Soda booked from Bombay Dadar to Kankaria under Invoice No. 358, Railway Receipt No. 42562 dated 17-3-1967. The suit was instituted after giving requisite notices to the Railway Administration opponent herein under Section 78 B of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the institution of the suit, the said consignment appeared to have reached its destination on or about 28-9-1967. Thereupon, the defendant Railway's Agent, approached the petitioner-plaintiff to take delivery of the said consignment. The plaintiff informed the said Agent that as the said consignment had reached destination after a long time and as the consignment remained exposed to heat, sun,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1974]96ITR217(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. The same point of law arises in each of these special civil applications. The facts are also similar in each case and it will be convenient to dispose of the six special civil applications by this common judgment and that is why we deliver a common judgment in these matters. In order to indicate how the point of law arises, we will take up the facts in Special Civil Application No. 403 of 1972. The petitioner in this special civil application and each of the petitioners in the remaining petitions have been assessed as an individual under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Each of the petitioners is a coparcener of a Hindu undivided family and he has his own Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and his children. Each of the petitioners in this group of special civil applications has thrown into the hotchpot of one or the other of the Hindu undivided family his self-acquired properties in the relevant assessment year and each of them purports to have thrown his self...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]102ITR56(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. This reference raises the question regarding exemption from estate duty under section 29 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, which contemplates exemption from duty in cases where the estate duty has been paid on settled property on the death of one of the parties to a marriage. 2. Following are the relevant brief facts of this reference. The respondent is the accountable person and he is related to the deceased, Shri Kamlashanker Gopalshanker Bhachech, as one of his grandsons. Deceased, Kamlashanker, died on 25th October, 1964. He had a wife named Mahendraba Kamlashanker Bhachech. The deceased and his wife each possessed certain properties which were of their individual ownership. They were also jointly possessed of certain properties one of which is a bungalow known as 'Dilhar Dwar' situated in Ellisbridge are of Ahmedabad. The dispute in this reference is with regard to estate duty leviable on 1/2 share of the wife of the deceased, Kamlashanker Bhachech, in this bungalow ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1975CriLJ614; (1974)15GLR852
D.P. Desai, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is: Whether the report of a Public Analyst under Section 13 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which is not in the form No. III prescribed by Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), is admissible in evidence under Section 13(5) of 'the Act without examining the Public Analyst? Together with this question, the question which may collaterally arise has also been posed in this proceeding. It is whether in a case where the report is not in the prescribed form as stated above is it open for the prosecution to examine the Public Analyst and prove the facts stated in the report?2. The matter has come up before (us on a difference of opinion on the first question which arose as a result of our learned brother Surti. J. having found himself unable to see eye to eye with the interpretation of Section 13(5) of the Act ny our lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]105ITR230(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. Some questions of law regarding some of the sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', are involved in these three petitions and, therefore, we will dispose of the three special civil applications by this common judgment. The petitioner is Special Civil Application No. 294 of 1972 is a partnership firm which has been registered with the income-tax authorities in accordances with the provision of the Act. The petitioners in Special Civil Applications No. 655 of 1972 and 1112 of 1972 are partners of the said firm and they have challenged the orders of the respondents' levying of penal interest under the provisions of section 139(1) and section 139(4). The firsts respondent is the Income-tax Officer, Morvi, having jurisdiction over these three petitioners and the second respondent is the Additional Commissioner of Incomes-tax, Gujarat III, who has jurisdiction over the cases of the three petitioners. 2. The short facts giving rise to these th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]102ITR105(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, jewellery held by the Hindu undivided family was exempt under section 5(1)(viii) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction admissible is in respect of tax payable pursuant to the relevant returns filed by the assessee or whether such deductions is admissible in respect of such tax as finally determined on assessments ?' The above question have been referred to us in the following circumstances; 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the relevant assessment years for the purpose of this reference are 1962-63 to 1964-65. The assessee claimed before the Wealth-tax Officer that the value of jewellery and ornaments amounting to Rs. 1,85,216 was exempt under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act on the ground that they were meant for personal use ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj81
M.U. Shah, J.1. These two appeals wise out of the original Special Jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 52 of 1965 of the Court of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baroda, for administration of the estate of deceased Kazamali Mustafamiya who died intestate leaving extensive immovable properties and leaving behind him the plaintiff daughter and the parties to the suit as his heirs. First Appeal No, 283 of 1968 is filed by original defendants Nos. 1 and 5 of the said suit and is directed against the decision of the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baroda, in Special jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 52, of 1965 given on 31-8-1967 whereby the learned Civil Judge, has passed a preliminary decree as in an administration suit and directed that accounts be taken and enquiries be made in relation to estate left by deceased Kazamali Mustafaali save the immovable properties comprised in Kazamali's gift-deeds Exs.125 and 126. Second Appeal No. 242 of 1971 is directed against the deci...
Tag this Judgment!