Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1993)113CTR(Guj)75; [1993]204ITR866(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J. 1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was the owner of a property consisting of land admeasuring about 357 sq. mtrs. (428 sq. yards) along with the superstructure bearing sub-plot No. 6/2 of Final Plot Nos. 306-307 and 308 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 8 at Mithakhali in this town, has brought in challenge the order passed on January 31, 1992, by members of the appropriate authority functioning under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The challenge at this stage of the final hearing of this petition is confined to two deductions made by the appropriate authorities from the amount held payable to the petitioner for compulsory purchase of the aforesaid property by the Central Government. These disputed deduction are : (a) Rs. 35,333; and (b) Rs. 1,02,062. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy centering round the two disputed amounts, it is necessary to note a few introd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1980Guj62; (1979)GLR878(GJ)
S.H. Sheth, J.1. In order to appreciate the question which has been referred to the Full Bench, it is necessary to state a few facts. Plot No. 8 was allotted by Santosh Co-operative Housing Society to one Girish Morarji Mehta. The society constructed houses and the house constructed on plot No. 8 was allotted. by the society to Girish. On 16th December, 1965, Girish applied to the society for transfer of his shares to Juvansinh Shivubha Jadeja - the plaintiff. The society accepted the transfer of the shares and admitted Juvansinh Shivubha Jadeja to its membership. When 'Girish was occupying the house in question, he had let it out to the defendants. Upon transfer of shares by Girish to Juvansinh the plaintiff, the latter claimed to recover from the defendants rent in respect of the suit premises. The defendants did not accept Juvansinh's title as a result of which rent remained unpaid from 1st January, 1966'to 31st October 1967. Notice of demand was served upon the defendants rent also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas720(Guj); [2009(121)FLR800]; (2009)1GLR552; [2008]87SCL155(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all the four matters and since they are heard together, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. All these four criminal revision applications are filed by the petitioners original accused against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya in Criminal Appeal Nos. 31, 12, 30 & 29 of 2002 dated 30.01.2008 whereby the learned Presiding Officer has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dwarka in Criminal Case Nos. 850, 180, 716 & 632 of 1994 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- and further directing the petitioners to deposit the amount of fine and, in default, the petitioners shall have to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1970]77ITR165(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. The question arising in this petition is a question of considerable importance relating to the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to an application for reference made to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66, sub-section (1), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question lies in the narrow compass but in order to appreciate it, it is necessary to notice briefly the facts giving rise to the petition. 2. In the course of the assessment to income-tax for the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee, who is the respondent before us, claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,05,900 was liable to be deducted in computing the total income of the assessee but this claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and the sum of Rs. 1,05,900 was included in the total income of the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the appeal was unsuccessful. This was followed by a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)183CTR(Guj)608; [2003]264ITR21(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1.The Tribunal, Ahmemdabad Bench 'A' has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.'At the instance of the assessee : R.A. No. 333/Ahd/1989 (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that scrutiny fees of Rs. 45,000 paid to GIIC for obtaining a loan for the purchase of machinery and extension of building was not allowable revenue expenditure ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the fees of Rs. 4,350 paid to M/s Dixit Consultants for preparing a report in connection with the loan from GSFC/GIIC for manufacturing pumps and valves was not allowable revenue expenditure ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas right in holding that the amount of Rs. 10,000 paid to M/s Parekh Jazal &Co.; in connection with the above loan of Rs. 60, lakhs from. GIIC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR961
A.L. Dave, J.1. Lilaben, daughter of complainant Babarbhai Govindbhai Gohil, was married to original accused No. 1 on 31/5/1991. Accused appellant No. 1 and Lilaben were staying at Thanklessly near the house of complainant Babarbhai Govindbhai Gohil. Parents of accused appellant No. 1 Devajibhai Prabhubhai Makwana and Kashiben Devajibhai Makwana are staying at village Ikhar, District Bharuch, which is at a distance of about 30 Kms from Ankleshwar and elder brother of accused appellant No. 1 Kanchanlal Devajibhai Makwana and his wife Taraben stay at Bharuch; whereas younger brother of accused appellant No. 1 Girishbhai Devajibhai Makwana stays at Ikhar.1.1. Lilaben committed suicide at her home on 8/6/1999 around 1300 hours by hanging herself by neck with the fan. On being informed about the incident, Babarbhai Govindbhai Gohil, father of the deceased immediately informed the police and the police recorded his information and registered offence. Investigation was started. It was found t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2001Guj115
D.P. Buch, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order recorded by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad on 31st August, 1999. below application Exh. 153 submitted by the present respondents directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 14,630/- towards the stamp duty and penalty on the document produced at Mark 142/1 and further directing that the said document shall not be exhibited for want of its registration under the provisions of Indian Registration Act.2. It appears that the aforesaid document which is placed on the record of this Court at Annexure 'A' is a deed of assignment. The trial court found that the document has been duly proved but the trial court also found that since the document required compulsory registration and since it has not been registered, the said document cannot be exhibited, therefore, the aforesaid order came to be passed by the learned Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1234; (1994)IILLJ1234Guj
1. The only question which arises in these three petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of India filed by the Industrial Company is whether the Labour court had committed an error of law or jurisdiction by committing procedural irregularity in calling upon the employer to produce documentary and oral evidence in three reference cases relating to dismissal of the three workmen. The petitioner in all the three petitions is the same. Originally thirty-three references were made to the Labour court, Rajkot, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to dismissal of thirty-three workmen, but thirty disputes came to be settled or disposed of in accordance with law. 2(a) The workman Mahavirsinh Shivubha was a gardener in the garden department of the petitioner's factory and his services were terminated with effect from 25.1.1982, hence the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in Reference (LC) No. 958 of 1984. 2(b) The workman Raghu Arjan who was serving as T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj188; (2007)3GLR2349
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions have been heard together as the evidence relatable to both the matters is common and the controversy arises out of Summary Lavad Suit No. 1007 of 1999 before the Board of Nominees. The said suit was filed by respondent No. 1_Co.operative Bank against both the petitioners who are guarantors in relation to loan availed of by one Milindaben Ashwinkumar Dave, Proprietor, Art Research Communication, Vadodara who was defendant No. 1 in the said suit. Vide judgment and award dated 23.10.2002 Board of Nominees decreed the suit directing all the defendants, viz borrower and the petitioner guarantors, to pay a sum of Rs. 2,46,215/- along with running interest @ 22.5% on and from 18.8.1999.2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1836 of 2005 carried the matter in appeal before the Gujarat State Co.operative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.08.2004. The petition against the said order came to be admitted vide order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1984Guj126; (1983)2GLR961
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This involves point about an oral gift, trade by a Mahomedan and also an oral will, Some of the donees and legatees am actual heirs under the Mahomedan law, while the one, i.e., the plaintiff, who has filed the suit, is not.2. The suit property belonged to one Shah Mohmed Noor Mohmed. lie had four swis - (1) Ibrahim (appellant No. 1), (2) Usman (appellant No. 2), (3) Noor Mohmed (respondent No. 1's father), who died during the life-time of Shah Mohrrked and (4) Ismail. He had also one daughter narned Kulsumbibi (appellant No. 3).3. Plaintiff Noor Ahmed Noor Mohmed filed Civil Suit No. 3615 of 1973 on the ground that. his grand-father Shah Mohmed had made an oral gift of some properties which are mentioned in Schedule 'A, to the plaint, in favor of the three appellants and respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). This oral gift is alleged to have been made on 1-4-1953. It was also his case that before going to pilgrimage to Mecca, his grand-father also made an oral will in favo...
Tag this Judgment!