Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)1GLR426
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Unjha in Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 1990 dated 2-2-1995. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge has refused to exhibit document at Exh. 85/6 which purports to be a writing or agreement executed between deceased Mangaldas Shivram and Mohanlal Joitaram Oza on 3-1-1969. Said agreement is executed on a stamped paper of Rs. 1.75 ps. During the evidence of witness Mohanlal Joitaram Oza being witness No. 2 for the plaintiff, in the examination-in-chief the said document dated 3-1-1969 was shown to the witness Mohanlal Joitaram Oza. Said witness deposed that he has signed below the agreement as well as another signature is that of deceased Mangaldas Shivram. He also stated that the said agreement was with respect to prohibition against putting up construction of lavatory on Otla. He also deposed that the said writing was acceptable to him as well as to deceased Mangaldas Shrivram. He also state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj1; (1965)GLR778
Bhagwati, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment given by Raju, J., in Second Appeal confirming a decree passed in appeal by the District Judge, Broach, dismissing a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st June 1949. The defendant had also according to the plaintiff, executed in favour of the plaintiff, an instrument in writing dated 21st June 1949 in respect of the loan but since in view of the plaintiff the instrument appeared to be a promissory note and on that view the instrument being unstamped would be inadmissible in evidence, the plaintiff sued on the original cause of action. The defendant admitted execution of the instrument but his defence was that no moneys were lent and advanced to him against the instrument on 21st June 1949. According to the defendant the instrument ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj7; (1965)GLR893
(1) The only question which is raised in this Second Appeal is about the correctness of the decision recorded by the two Courts that the instruments, dated 30th December 1951, was a promissory note within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (XI of 1899). (Hereinafter called 'the Act') and as such, inadmissible in evidence plaintiff Appellant brought the suit from which the Second Appeal arises, for recovering a sum of Rs.769-4-0 from defendant - respondent. The claim was based on the aforesaid document dated 30th December, 1951. When the document was sought to be got admitted in the trail Court, defendant raised an objection that as the document was a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2 sub-section (22) of the Act and as it was not stamped a required by Art.49 of the act, the same was not admissible in evidence under S.35 of the Act. This contention was upheld by the trail court and, on that finding, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed plaintiff preferred an appeal to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1983)1GLR704
A.P. Ravani, J.1. In this revision application the short point which arises is as to on which date the notice as required under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act was served upon the Railway Administration. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the goods consigned on August 31, 1972 from Kankaria station of the Western Railway to Nabinagar Road Station on the Western Railway were not at all delivered.2. Therefore the plaintiff had written a letter, Exhibit 30, dated February 26, 1974-being claim notice. Another letter being a post card Exhibit 31 was written on February 26,1973. The letter Exhibit 30 has admittedly reached the Railway Administration on March 1, 1973, that is, one day after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act. However, the controversy pertains to post-card Exhibit 31. This post-card has been despatched on February 26, 1973 and it has reached the Nibinagar post office on February 28, 1973 and the postal mark shows the del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001]250ITR542(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. In view of the order made by the Division Bench of this court on September 21, 1995, referring the matter to a larger Bench and in view of the order made by the Chief Justice on March 29, 2000, this matter is placed before this larger Bench.2. Before reverting to the question of law, in the instant case it would be most appropriate to refer to the facts of the case.3. There was a transaction of lease-hold rights in the property in question and not a sale of ownership rights. A document dated August 3, 1968, purporting to create only leasehold rights was admitted to be of no value as the transaction was entered into without the written consent of the owner of the building, i.e., the original lessor. It seems that after some time, the consent of the owner of the property, i.e., the original lessor was obtained and the lessee (the assessee) executed a lease deed on October 13, 1973, transferring lease-hold rights in favour of the transferee. The Tribunal has recorded a fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR778
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment given by Raju J. in Second Appeal confirming a decree passed in appeal by the District Judge Broach dismissing a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 5 100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st June 1949. The defendant had also according to the plaintiff executed in favour of the plaintiff an instrument in writing dated 21st June 1949 in respect of this loan but since in the view of the plaintiff the instrument appeared to be a promissory note and on that view the instrument being unstamped would be inadmissible in evidence the plaintiff sued on the original cause of action. The defendant admitted execution of the instrument but his defence was that no moneys were lent and advanced to him against the instrument on 21 June 1949. According to the defendant the instrument though dated 21 June 1949 was actually executed on 14th June 1949 and the circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1980]126ITR1(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In both these special civil applications the respective petitioner-company challenges the notice of acquisition respectively issued to it by the first-respondent, the competent authority, under the provisions of Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The notices initiating acquisition proceedings under Section 269D(2) of the Act have been issued in respect of a transfer. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1394 of 1973 is the transferor and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1481 of 1973 is the transferee in respect of the transaction which was by means of a conveyance of sale dated March 30, 1973. Since both these special civil applications arise from the same bundle of facts and raise the same questions of law, it will be convenient to dispose of both of them by this common judgment. The transferor company is, what is known in the languageof company law, a holding company and the transferee company is its wholly-owned subsidiary. There is no dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!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 : (1965)6GLR893
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. The only question which is raised in this Second Appeal is about the correctness of the decision recorded by the two Courts that the instrument dated 30th December 1951 was a promissory note within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (XI of 1899) (hereafter called the Act) and as such inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff-appellant brought the suit from which the Second Appeal arises for recovering a sum of Rs. 769-4-0 from defendant respondent The claim was based on the aforesaid document dated 20th December 1951 When the document was sought to be got admitted in the trial Court defendant raised an objection that as the document was a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2 Sub-section (22) of the Act and as it was not stamped as required by Article 49 of the Act the same was not admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Act. This contention was upheld by the trial Court and on that finding the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1994Guj31; (1993)2GLR1693
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 1007 of 1973, in favour of the respondent-original plaintiff, by City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad, on 9th September, 1976, by invoking the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short).2. The respondent filed the above suit against the appellant, for the recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendant' for the sake of convenience and brevity.3. The plaintiff, by filing the above suit, claimed an amount of Rs. 5,350/-, contending that the defendant, who was carrying on the business of provision store, had executed a promissory note of Rs. 5,000/-, on 16-8-1972, as he required funds for his business. The defendant, in his written statement, Ex. 22, inter alia, contended that he had not executed the questioned promissiory note. It was also alleged that, the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!