Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)10GLR288
B.G. Thakor, J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the defendants against the decision and judgment of our learned brother, Bakshi, J. who was pleased to dismiss Second Appeal No. 1581 of 1960 which was also filed by the defendants. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership and for taking accounts. One of the defences taken in the suit was that the subject matter of the suit was referred to arbitration and that the arbitrator had made an award and that therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The question raised in Second Appeal was whether it was open to the defendants to plead the existence of an award as a bar to the maintainability of a suit. His Lordship Bakshi, J. was pleased to hold that under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, an award or an arbitration award could be treated as effective only if a decree was obtained on the award in accordance with the arbitration. The view taken was that an award w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1969]73ITR206(Guj)
Divan, J.1. Both these reference arise in connection with the assessments under the Wealth-tax Act of three different members of the same family and in the case of each of the three assessees, the question has arisen under a separate trust deed created by the settlor in favour of the assessee concerned. Each of the three trust deeds in identical terms except that in the case of the assessee in Wealth-tax Reference No. 5 of 1965, there is only one clause different from the two trust deeds in the case of the assessee in Wealth-tax Reference No. 3 of 1965. Since the questions arising in the two reference re common and since the clauses of the trust deed which require interpretation a common, except for the one variation, we will dispose of both the reference by this common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are that by three different trust deeds, all included of February 28, 1958, the settlor, who was under an obligation to provide for the expresses and of and incidenta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj97
Sarela, J.(1) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 486/66, Manshankar Pabhashankar Dwivedi (hereinafter referred to as accused No.1), was at the relevant time a senior Lecturer at the D. K. V. College, Jamnagar, which is a Government College. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 555/66, Vallabhdas Gordhandas Thakkar (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 2) was a legal practitioner taking income-tax and Sales-tax cases. He also resided at Jamnagar. In April 1964 the Physics Practical Examination for F.Y.B.Sc. equivalent to inter Science was to be held by the Gujarat University and one of the centres was Surendranagar. The accused No. 1 had been appointed as the Examiner for Physics Practical. It is in respect of that examination that he is alleged to have accepted a gratification of Rs. 500/- other than legal remuneration for showing favour to one candidate Jayendra Jayantilal by giving him more marks in the said examination. It was alleged by the prosecution that he obtained that sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1969]74ITR254(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This references raises a rather important question affecting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference arises out of an assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65. The assessees is a private limited company and in the course of its assessment for the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee made, inter alia, three claims for deduction : one was from depreciation in respect of the land on which stood the building of the assessee; the other was for develop rebate in respect of certain machinery installed during the relevant account year and the third was for a sum of Rs. 25,920 begins the aggregate amount of stamp duty, registration charges, lawyer's fees and the miscellaneous expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the issue of debentures secured on the fixed assets of the assessee and issue to the Bank of India Ltd. to secure a loan borrowed for the purpose of the business of the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1968]22STC507(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting question as to whether on the death of a dealer his heir or legal representative could be assessed to sales tax under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the ground that he continued the deceased dealer's business. 2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under :- The petitioner is the partnership firm of Messrs Champaklal and Sohanlal which carries on business of selling biris and cigarettes in Ahmedabad. Shivratan, the father of one of the partners, Champaklal, had migrated from Pakistan in 1947-48 and was carrying on business in biris, cigarettes etc. as a proprietor. He died in November, 1957, when Champaklal was aged about 13 or 14 years. Champaklal since 1958 continued this business in alleged partnership with Sohanlal. It appears that the premises of the business of the petitioner were raided on 18th August...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj195; 1969CriLJ902; (1969)GLR646
ORDERN.G. Shelat, J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference, broadly stated, are that one Patel Laljibhai Somabhai of village Juval Rupavati, filed Civil Suit No. 11 of 1964 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) at Dholka, against Vora Safakathusein Yusufali, the complainant in the present case, and his brother Vora Ahmedhussain Yusufali for recovering a sum of Rs. 2000 on the basis of a cheque dated 22-11-03 drawn in the name of self under the signature of the complainant Vora Safakathussain Yusufali Lakdawala on the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd.. Ahmedabad Branch. In that suit, the defence of the complainant and his brother Vora Ahmedhussain Yusufali was that the cheque in question and certain coupons which were produced and relied upon in that suit were forged and a false suit in collusion with the accused in this case was filed. That suit came to be dismissed on 30-1-1965 by Shri R. K. Atodaria, Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) Dholka. Thereafter on 16-11-1965 the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj152; (1969)GLR571
V.R. Shah, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the judgment-creditor and she filed an execution application to execute the decree. It has been dismissed by the executing Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is against this order that this appeal has been brought by the judgment-creditor.2. At the time when this appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Zaveri, learned Advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that an appeal from order cannot lie. but it should have been filed as a First Appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shelat, agrees to this and both Advocates have no objection to this appeal being treated as First Appeal. I, therefore, direct that this appeal may be registered as First Appeal and I proceed to dispose it of on that basis.3. The appellant filed the suit for maintenance both past and future, as well as for a declaration of her rights to a share in the property. A compromise purshis was put by the parties before the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj159; (1969)GLR561
ORDERJ.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the original defendant against the plaintiffs-opponents under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The opponents filed a Civil Suit No. 31 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge. (J.D.) Talaja for recovery of possession of suit land from the petitioner. According to them, they are the owners of the suit land and are in possession of it. The petitioner obstructs their possession and has made an application in the Mamlatdar's Court to have it mutated to her name, claiming the land to be hers.2. The petitioner filed a written statement on 24th July, 1967 and denied the claim of the opponents and challenged the maintainability of the suit.3. On 9th February, 1968. by an application Ex. 21, she sought permission for an amendment of a written statement By that application she wanted to take up three further contentions in regard to maintainability of the suit. One of them was that there was a previous suit between the parties an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj40; (1969)GLR225
A.D. Desai, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the rate at which the electricity was to be supplied to the respondent in respect of the street lights and water works motors. The facts according to the plaintiffs are that formerly there was a company which was known as Wadhwan State Electric Power Distributing Company, and it held a licence under Indian Electricity Act for supplying electric energy within the limits of Wadhwan City. The respondent Municipality entered into agreements with the said Company for the supply of electric energy to its water works motors as well as street lights. The agreements with respect to supply of electric energy to water works and the street lights were entered on September 28, 1943. The said Company was a partnership firm of which the former Wadhwan State and one Natvarlal Dhanjibhai Mehta were partners, On the integration of the former Wadhwan State and the formation of United State of Saurashtra, the State of Saurashtra became a partner in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj108; (1970)0GLR208
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition challenges the validity of certain provisions of the Gold Control Rules 1963. On 26th October 1962, simultaneously with the Declaration of Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution, the President promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962, pursuant to S. 3 of the Defence of India Ordinance, the Central Government made the Defence of India Rules 1962. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently repealed by the Defence of India Act, 1962 on 12th December 1962 but by virtue of the having provision, the Defence of India Rules, 1962, were continued in force. The Defence of India Act was passed, as its Preamble shows, to provide for special measures to ensure the public safety and interest, the defence of India and civil defence and for trial of certain offences and for matters connected therewith. Section 3, sub-section (1) read as follows:'3. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazettee, make such rules as appear to...
Tag this Judgment!