1
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-09-1970
Reported in : (1971)12GLR421
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the original defendants under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading rise to this revision petition, briefly stated are as under:The opponents-landlords filed Civil Suit No. 488 of 1962 against the petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Petlad, for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises. The suit premises consist of an open land bearing City Tika No. 10/1 and Survey No. 116 and a part of survey No. 123, situate near Kasyabhai,s Utara in Petlad, District Kaira. The opponents' case was that they want the suit premises for their personal use and occupation. They required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal use and occupation. They are doing business in Petlad under the name and style of Harilal Bhikhabhai & Co. They have got business also at Ahmed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-09-1970
Reported in : [1972]29STC419(Guj)
Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question of law arises in this reference and the question is whether the contract entered into between the assessee, on the one hand, and the Executive Engineer, Capital Project, Division No. II, Ahmedabad, on behalf of the Public Works Department of the State of Gujarat, on the other, for the manufacture and supply of kiln-burnt bricks for construction of Gandhinagar is a works contract or a contract of sale of bricks or a composite contract for work to be done for remuneration and for supply of material used in the execution of the work for a price. The question arises in these circumstances : The assessee, Messrs Sabarmati Reti Udyog Kamdar Sahakari Mandal Ltd., entered into a contract with the Public Works Department of the Government of Gujarat on 6th September, 1965, for manufacture and supply of kiln-burnt bricks to the said department for the construction of Gandhinagar. The assessee manufactured and supplied a large quantity of bricks under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-16-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Guj188
Mehta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the suit for declaration filed by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant defendant that the defendant is not the adopted son of deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghnathji of Junagadh. The suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judge. (S.D.) at Junagadh, where it was registered as long Civil Suit No. 115 of 1958. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit and, therefore, the original defendant, who claims that he is adopted son to the deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghunathji, has preferred this appeal.2. Short facts of the case are as under. The parties to this suit are the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharaj, the original founder of Suddh Adwit Pushti Marg. He flourished in Vikram Samvat 1535 which is equivalent to 1479 A.D. The family of the parties is called Vallabhkul. It is an admitted position that the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharai are working as Acharyas of various temples and Shrines in Gujarat and other ...
Tag this Judgment!