Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)122CTR(Guj)164; [1995]212ITR614(Guj)
Susanta Chatterji, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions, for the opinion of the High Court, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'the C. I. T. Baroda') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company was engaged in manufacturing and processing activities and, therefore, should be charged to tax at the rate of 55 per cent. (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Act ?' 2. It appears that the assessee claimed that it was a company engaged in manufacturing and that it should be charged to income-tax at the rate of 55 per cent. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee to be taxed at the rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj349; (1969)GLR769
ORDERJ.B. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition challenges under Articles 226 and 227 the order of respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, dated July 20, 1968, suspending the petitioner's licence for a firearm till the cases mentioned in his order were decided. 2. The petitioner was issued a licence for a revolver on May 15, 1949, which was from time to time renewed and it isvalid upto Dec. 31, 1970. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on June 15, 1968, by respondent No. 1, informing him that on inquiry it was found that the petitioner was practising medicine without a certificate for carrying on medical profession and that he was giving threats to kill his landlord because of disputes with him and that it was learnt that in 1948 there was a case against him for dacoity between Abu and Marwar. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to show cause why his licence should not be suspended under Section 17(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj262; [1965]56ITR152(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.(1) This Reference raises two questions relating to the assessment of the assessee who is the Acharya, that is, spiritual preceptor of one of the two dioceses of the religious denomination known as Swaminarayanan Sampradaya. In order to able to arrive at a proper determination of thee questions, it is necessary to go a little into the history of the Scheme by the High Court in Appeal No. 430 of 1927. The entire history is set out in the judgment of the High Court in that appeal and that judgment having been referred to and relied upon in the order of the Tribunal, a copy of it has been taken on record by us by consent parties. The whole of the history is however not material and we will, therefore, state only so much of it as is necessary for the purpose of the present Reference. (2) This Sampradaya which has a large number of adherents in this part of the country was founded by a great Hindu religious reformer named Sahajanand Swami who came to Gujarat in the early part of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2222
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. These petitions are filed by a Company, Navin Flourine Industries, a unit of Mafatlal Industries Limited, challenging the judgment and awards dated 19-7-2001 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (L.C.S.) Nos. 809, 804, 814, 808 of 1999, 7 of 2000, 812, 926, 815, 813 and 810 of 1999.As the record states, these petitions were filed on 27-8-2001, but thereafter, the matters were adjourned from time to time and it was only on 18-2-2003 that the Court passed the following order in Special Civil Application No. 8197 of 2001 :'Rule returnable on 20th March, 2003.In the meanwhile, interim relief in terms of Paragraph 32(B). It will be open for the respondent, workman to file an application/ affidavit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.' The matters were listed for final hearing on 20-3-2003, but then as the learned Advocate for the respondents, Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa filed sick note, the matters could not be taken up for final hearing and were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2002]256ITR50(Guj)
R.K.Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent, or even at the rate of 30 per cent, on crane mounted on motor truck ?' 2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee had purchased for Rs. 10,87,248 a mobile crane on November 19, 1981, and claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,34,898 at the rate of 40 per cent, thereon stating that it was used in the business of running it on hire and so, it will fall under entry No. IIIE(1A) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This was mentioned in the statement of total income filed along with the returns for the assessment year 1982-83. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to state reasons why depreciation at the general r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1971]41CompCas1098(Guj); (1972)0GLR33
Mehta, J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions challenge the validity of sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (which is hereinafter referred to as the 'State Act'), and the notifications issued by the State Government under these sections. In Spl. C.A. 638/69 the petitioners has further challenged the validity of section 18A and 18E(1)(c) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951 (which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act') as well as the notifications issued under section 18A thereof. 2. So far as Spl. C.A. 589/69 is concerned, the facts are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and the third respondent, the New Manekchowk Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The said company owns a factory, namely, a textile mill, which has 628 looms including 100 automatic looms and is running about 28,000 spindles. This company is found to be employing about 1,70...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2003]45SCL514(Guj)
ORDER1. The present Company Application is filed and Judge's Summons is taken out under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 in making following prayers :(1) For a declaration that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and others as Directors of the Company were guilty of misfeasance, breach of trust, breach of duty, gross negligence in discharging their duties and in managing the affairs of the Company and guilty of fraudulent conduct in relation to the Company,(2) For a declaration that the respondents are liable and accountable for the non-recovery of loans and advances by the Company and also for interest at reasonable market rates on the loans and advances by the Company.(3) For an order against all of them or such of them as may be held liable jointly or severally to repay various loans and advances made to themselves and/or their friends and/or relatives and others with interest at reasonable market rate and to contribute such amount to the assets of the Company by way of compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1820; (2010)ILLJ424Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. J. M. Patel, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Ms. Vinita Vinayak and Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned Advocates for the respondents. Having regard to the submissions, Rule.1.1. In view of the fact that in all the petitions, a common order has been impugned which relates to controversy concerning gratuity, Rule is made returnable forthwith and at the request and with the consent of all concerned, the petitions are taken upon for final hearing. Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa and Ms. Vinita Vinayak, learned Advocates for the respondents have waived service of notice of Rule. Since, the original order of adjudicating authority is a common order for all applications and as all the petitions raise common issues, they all are decided by this common judgment and order.1.2. In the captioned group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged a common order dated 29th October, 2007, in Gratuity Application Nos. 20 to 68 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)2GLR1390; (1988)2GLR594
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The appellant (original plaintiff), Wimco Ltd., is a public limited company, incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Indian Mercantile Chambers, Ramjibhai Kamani Marg, Bombay-38. It is carrying-on the business of manufacturing match boxes since last 65 years. It manufactures match boxes under the names 'Kapas' and 'Home Lites'. It is having its factories at different places in India.2. Defendant No. 1, Liberty Match Company is a registered partnership firm having its registered office at Kovilpatti in Tamil Nadu. It is also manufacturing match boxes since last two years under the trade name of 'Chameli' and 'Flying Horse'. Defendant No.2 is also a partnership firm and it is working as distributor and/or stockiest of defendant No.1 in the City of Ahmedabad and nearby markets, defendant No.5 is also a partnership firm of which defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the partners. Defendant No. 5 is also appointed as distributor and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1971]41CompCas1023(Guj); (1972)GLR200
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question of construction of section 446, sub-section (2), of the Companies Act, 1956. It arises out of an application made by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of Suit No. 1 of 1970, filed by the respondents against the appellant in this court. The suit came to be filed in the following circumstances. The first respondent, prior to its winding-up, entered into two contracts with the appellant for purchase of certain items of textile machinery and under the contracts the first respondent paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 39,852 to the appellant. The appellant was ready and wiling to deliver the contracted items of textile machinery to the first respondent against payment of the balance of the purchase price but the first respondent failed to take delivery owing to its difficult financial circumstances and the appellant, therefore, forfeited the sum of Rs. 39,852 on the basis that it represented earnest mo...
Tag this Judgment!