Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-25-1980
Reported in : (1981)22CTR(Guj)186; [1981]130ITR655(Guj)
Majmudar, J.1. This reference at the instance of the assessee raises for our consideration the following three questions of law which have been referred to us for opinion by the I. T. A. Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the machineries and tools, goodwill and stock sold by the assessee to M/s. Acme Pencil Factory were separately valued for the purpose of sale and that, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains and profits u/s. 41 (2) of the Act on sale of machineries and tools, etc. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 13,000 was liable to tax by way of profit on sale of stock 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was liable to pay tax on Rs. 25,000, being capital gains on transfer of goodwill ?' 2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-17-1980
Reported in : (1981)22GLR596
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This petition raises a number of questions of law of wide importance under The Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976, which came into force on 15th August 1976. The Act wiped off the debts of certain categories of 'debtors' and scaled those of certain other categories Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be 'marginal farmers' or 'small farmers' within the meaning of those expressions assigned to them under the Act and applied to the Debt Settlement Officer for extinguishment of the debt which they owed to the petitioner. It is alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 sold off survey No. 368 on 12th August 1977 that is to say, after the Act came into force. On 14th December 1978, the Debt Settlement Officer held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were 'small farmers' on the appointed day within the meaning of that expression assigned to it under the Act and therefore, were 'debtors' within the meaning of the Act. After having considered the merits of the case, he declared that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-28-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Guj142; (1981)0GLR389
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil P. C. involves a short question of law as to whether documents Exs. 38 and 40 relied upon by the present appellants -original defendants - amount to acknowledgment of subsisting mortgagee rights on the part of the respondent and his father within the meaning of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, .1908). If these documents are held to amount to valid acknowledgement within the meaning of aforesaid section of the Limitation Act, the appellants are entitled to succeed but not otherwise.2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have a glance at certain material facts as are brought out in the case.3. In Dohad town in Panchamahals District is situated an immovable property bearing city survey No. 2810 which was originally an open piece of land over which a hut was constructed later on. The said property was belonging to one Marabkhan Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-21-1980
Reported in : (1980)2GLR281
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a request to set aside the judgment and order dated 23-6-1980, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaira in Criminal Revision Application no. 13 of 1980 and 22 of 1980, by which he set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umreth, dated 10-1-1980 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 20 of 1979. By that order, the learned Magistrate had ordered that a tractor, bearing no. G.T.M. 6463, involved in the dispute between the parties be handed-over to the present petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the dispute, it will be worthwhile to refer to the facts. On 18-7-1979 the petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umreth against the present respondent no. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that the petitioner was cheated by respondent no....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-25-1980
Reported in : (1981)22GLR1019
ORDER:Inspection of Judge's minute book cannot be given. Copies of the minute books cannot, in my opinion, be given. It does not form a part of the record (See 9 B.L.R. 1042). If Supreme Court wants it, it will be sent there.Sd. S.H. Sheth. J,16-7-80Sd. S.L. Talati, J.16-7-80.7. The substance of the order made as above was communicated to the petitioner by a communication dated July 19, 1980 issued under the signature of the Assistant Registrar of this High Court (respondent No. 5) and the petitioner was informed that:.Their Lordships have, on consideration of your request, directed me to inform you that the inspection of the Judge's Minute Books cannot be permitted nor the copies of such notes taken down by Their Lordships in the Minute Books can be supplied. I am also to inform you that if the Supreme Court wants the notes in question the same would be supplied to them.It might be stated that after the receipt of the aforesaid communication from the Assistant Registrar, the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-17-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Guj15; (1981)0GLR206
Sheth, J.1. The Petitioner is the Executive Trustee of Consumer Education and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the 'Centre' for the sake of brevity) at Ahmedabad. He has filed this petition as a citizen of India and also in his capacity as the Executive Trustee. The Centre published a study entitled 'A fraud on policy-holder'. It is not disputed that it was a scientific research made into the working of the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for the sake of brevity). This study tried to portray and establish the discriminatory practices which the Corporation is alleged to have adopted and which adversely affect a large number of policy-holders their investment policies, their expense ratio, availability of term insurance and other cognate matters. Mr. N. C. Krishnan who is a Director of the Corporation wrote a reply to it. His reply was published in The Hindu on 6th November 1978. In that reply, he tried to challenge the conclusions reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-07-1980
Reported in : (1980)2GLR30
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Sarabhai Chemicals Limited, the petitioner, has been manufacturing the following four medicinal preparations:1. SIQUIL (Triflupromazine Hydrochloride).2. ANATENSOL (Fluphenazine Hydrochloride)3. DI-RAUDIXIN (whole root Rauwolfia Serpentina).4. DI-RAUDTXIN FORTE.It is un-disputed that they are all tranquillizers. The question which has been raised for our consideration is whether they are medicinal preparations containing 'narcotic drug' or 'narcotic' within the meaning of Item I (iii) in the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, and are, therefore, liable to payment of excise duty thereunder. Mr. I.M. Nanavaty states to us that in respect of these medicinal preparations, the petitioner has been paying excise duty levied under Section 3 read with Item 14E in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Item 14E provides for levy of excise duty on patent or proprietary medicines not containing 'narcotic drug' or 'na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-13-1980
Reported in : (1981)25CTR(Guj)283
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the carried forward development rebate of the earlier years cannot take precedence over the unabsorbed depreciation and business losses for the purpose of set off during the current year (2) Whether the Tribunal has erred in interpreting section 2(45) read in the context of sections 5, 33 and 72, etc., in determining the point at issue ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessment year under consideration is 1970-71, corresponding to calendar year 1969. The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton cloth. The ITO computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 15,92,301. From this he made certain deductions on account of telephone deposit, depreciation, business losses carried forward f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-25-1980
Reported in : (1980)16CTR(Guj)337
Divan, C.J.1. In this case at the instance of the revenue the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the living allowance did not constitute perquisite within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the I.T. Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income computable under the head ' Salaries ' had not been earned in India as contemplated under Section 9(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act ' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows I We are concerned with the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee is an individual and he is not ordinarily resident in India. The assessment relates to the income under the head 'Salaries' and the period from July 31, 1971,to March 31, 1972, is the portion of the previous year which is under consideration. The ITO assessed the income of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-02-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Guj1; (1980)GLR838(GJ)
Divan, C.J.1. So far as this Full Bench is concerned, we will only deal with the question arising under Section 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. This second appeal first came up for hearing before our learned Brother S. B. majmudar, J. on November 27, 1979. By his order dated on that day he referred the second appeal to a larger Bench forresolving the controversy which arises for decision in the present case. Our learned Brother found that there was an important question of law of general public importance arising in this present proceeding and the decision of the learned single Judge M. U. Shah, J. though directly on the point had not considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and that at present there were Division Bench judgments of this Court, some of which had made certain general observations though not strictly concerned with the main question whieh arose for decision in the present ease and he felt that it was a it case which deserved to be referred to a La...
Tag this Judgment!