Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj152; (1969)GLR571
V.R. Shah, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the judgment-creditor and she filed an execution application to execute the decree. It has been dismissed by the executing Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is against this order that this appeal has been brought by the judgment-creditor.2. At the time when this appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Zaveri, learned Advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that an appeal from order cannot lie. but it should have been filed as a First Appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shelat, agrees to this and both Advocates have no objection to this appeal being treated as First Appeal. I, therefore, direct that this appeal may be registered as First Appeal and I proceed to dispose it of on that basis.3. The appellant filed the suit for maintenance both past and future, as well as for a declaration of her rights to a share in the property. A compromise purshis was put by the parties before the Court...
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 : (1996)136CTR(Guj)112; [1996]222ITR281(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, by filing this petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the notice at annexure 'C' issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and all the further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof including the assessment order if passed. 2. The petitioner, a public limited company, submitted its return for the assessment year 1993-94 on December 20, 1993, along with the statement of total income, statement of business income, etc., a copy of which is at annexure 'A' to the petition. 3. The petitioner made a claim of Rs. 1,27,95,596 in respect of interest stating specifically that this interest has been capitalised in the books and that being in respect of capital borrowed, it is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, in accordance with the decision of this court in CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. : [1976]103ITR715(Guj) . The A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)1GLR268
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an Appeal from Order brought to this court by the original plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 of the Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 1972, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-7-77 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Jamnagar, ordering the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.2. The appellant No. 1 Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act and having its office at Bombay is the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit. This company is manufacturing knitting machines. This company bad entered into an agreement with the plaintiff No. 2 to sell some of those machines. The plaintiff No. 2, is a company at Mohrenstrassee in Berlin in the German Democratic Republic. The plaintiff no. 3 is the Insurance Company, having its office at Bombay, now undertaken by the United India General Insurance Company, the State concern. The defendant No. 1, who is the respondent No. 1 herein, is Verb Deutsche Seereederai, which is a company hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj214; (1967)0GLR281
Bhagwati, J.(1) This appeal arises out of an application made by the applicant as the universal legatee of the estate of one Bechar Dunger alias Maharaj Balakdaji (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) for obtaining letter of administration with a copy of the will annexed. The deceased was originally a resident of Khoda and was carrying on worship of his Thakorji at that place. In Samvat Year 1979 he purchased land bearing Plot No. 98 admeasuring 2,000 square yards at Jorawarnager and built a temple on the said land and installed the images of his Thakorji in the said temple. He thereafter shifted to Jorawarnagar and performed the worship of Tahkorji and managed and looked after the temple. One Sadhu named Maharaj Srik Karsandasji gave him a 'Kanthi' and initiated him in the order of sadhu and since then he came to known as Maharaj Shri Balakdasji, he dedicated the land and the temple standing on it to Thakorji and carried on management of the temple and performed worship of Thakorj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj147
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Mr. D.F. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. R.M. Vin, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Hukum Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 2-State.2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that one Chetiabhai Mavjibhai Katara-husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 was the owner of the suit land bearing Survey No. 51 admeasuring 13 Acres and 2 Gunthas and was cultivating the same.3. The said Chetiabhai Mavjibhai Katara expired in the year 1951 and thereafter, the plaintiffs became owners of the suit land. The plaintiffs say that their names were recorded in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry No. 35. The defendant No. 1, who were residing at village Voroda, somehow or other, managed an entry in his favour that he had purchased the property by paying a consideration of Rs. 300.00 (Rupees Three Hundred only) and the sale was oral. After realising about the entry, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR31
J.B. Mehta, J.1. Defendant No. I company challenges in this revision application the order of the trial Judge holding that Clause 8 of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, dated May 9, 1964 did not operate as an absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the Bhuj Court, and that he had discretion in such a case to entertain a suit as otherwise great hardship and inconvenience would result to the parties if this suit was not be proceeded with in the Court at Bhuj. The plaintiff-contractor-firm had taken a building contract for constructing flourmill and office premises of defendant No. 1 company at Adipur as per the agreement, dated May 9, 1964. The relevant Clause 8 provides as under:All disputes arising out of or in any way connected with this agreement shall be deemed to have arisen in Delhi and only Courts at Delhi shall have jurisdiction to determine the same.The plaintiff-contractor having not been paid its dues for construction in question, and as defendant No. 1 had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2005]63SCL200(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since all these matters are inter-connected and since common pleadings and common arguments are made by the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Company Petition No. 153 of 1985 is filed by Samar Man-Made Fibres Private Limited under Section 433 & 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent Company on the ground that the respondent Company has failed and neglected to pay the dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 30,28,422.79 being the aggregate sum of the principle amount of Rs. 25,87,729/- and interest calculated thereon @ 21% p.a. upto the date of the petition.3. Similar petitions were filed by Gaekwad Agencies Pvt. Ltd. being Company Petition No. 154 of 1985, Pratap Investment Private Limited being Company Petition No. 155 of 1985 and Anjana Dealers Private Limited being Company Petition No. 156 of 1985 against the very same respondent Company, namely, Alaukik Trading & Investment Private Limited.4. The petitioners of al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3786
C.K. Buch, J.1. The petitioner of Special Criminal Application NO.1229 of 2003 is the original accused of Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 tried and convicted by the learned JMFC, 4th Court, Vadodara for offence punishable under section 138 of Netotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) and the petitioner of other petition i.e. Special Criminal Application NO. 209 of 2004 is the original complainant of said Criminal Case.2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, both these petitioners are referred to as accused and complainant respectively.3. The accused Salvinder Kaur Hardipsingh Lubani has moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the following main reliefs mentioned in para 12 of the memo of the petition.(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 dated 4.10.2002 and the same orders confirmed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR672
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The facts giving rise to this application are that opponent No. 1 has been serving as a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipality of Mehsana. He filed a complaint against the two applicants in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Mehsana in respect of their having committed an offence for putting up some construction without obtaining the permission of the Municipality punishable under Section 155(7) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The complaint did not bear any Courtfee stamp. That led the applicants-accused in the case to present an application Ex. 5 inter alia alleging that the complainant is not a municipal officer and as such not a public servant who is exempted from affixing any Court-fee stamp on the complaint filed by him, and since the complaint bears no Court-fee stamp as required by law, it is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the other side, the learned Magistrate passed an order wherein he observed that under Section 73 of the Gu...
Tag this Judgment!