Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1980Guj89; (1980)1GLR103
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion:1. Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Nanumal Rajumal v. Lilaram Vensimal : (1977)18GLR858 is a, good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram. (1976) 1 SCC 85V 2. If a statutory tenant has also an estate and is heritable and transferable, would it require a notice for determination of that estate as prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. The above two questions arise in the following circumstances:The deceased father of the plaintiff land lords, who are the petitioners before us, filed H. R. P. suit No. 5218 of 1965 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1975 arises, in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad against the defendant-tenants who are the respondents herein, for possession of the residential premises bearing municipal census Nos. 2926 and 2923/1 situate in Zaveriwad Kalupur, Ahmedabad, which were taken on leas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)GLR413; (1979)0GLR413; [1979]118ITR134(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. These two appeals under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad, are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad of July 25, 1975, allowing the two appeals filed by the respective respondent-transferees herein from the order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range-II, Ahmedabad, passed on January 16, 1975, acquiring two industrial sheds of type-A bearing block Nos. 1/3 and 1/4 situate in the industrial estate set up by the Baroda Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BIDCO' for the sake of convenience) under s. 269F(6) of the aforesaid Act as the fair market value of the respective sheds exceeded the apparent consideration in the respective instruments of transfer of February 5, 1973, and had not been truly stated with the ulterior object of tax evasion and/or facilitating concealment of income or assets. Since the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1979CENCUS145D; 1979(4)ELT181(Guj); (1979)0GLR944
1. In this ground of seven matters, every onr of the petitioners is a processor of fabrics, that is , task of bleaching, dyeing and petiting of fabrics which are already in existance, is done by these processors. Tree out of these petitioners are processors of cotton fabrics. These processors are only the owners of processing houses. They have no weaving or spinning departments. The fabric which is woven on powerlooms, mostly, is brought to them for being processed by bleaching, dyeing, and printing, so as to make the fabric more attractive to the consumer. 2. The objection by these processors is to the levy of excise duty under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Item 68 refgers to 'All other goods, not elsewhere specified,' manufactured in a factory, but excluding (a) alchol, all sort, including alcoholic liquors for human consumption; (b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narotics; and (c) dutiable goods as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)1GLR732
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals, one by the State of Gujarat and the other by the Gandhidham Municipality, are directed against the judgment of our learned brother S.H. Sheth, J. in a writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Special Civil Application No. 748/74, by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kandla, (hereinafter called the Board) challenging the right of the State Government to recover non-agricultural assessment in the sum of Rs. 56,06, 400/- for the revenue years 1963-64 to 1970-71 in respect of lands vesting in the Board by virtue of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Major Port Trusts Act (Act XXXIII of 1963). Questions of some complexity arise in these appeals and they shall have to be determined in the light of the material facts set out hereunder.2. The Maharao of Kutch was the ruler of the Indian State of Kutch. He conceived of the idea of developing a port at Kandla and translated it into action so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)1GLR714
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. This group of petitions is referred to this Bench to decide the question whether it abates on the grounds mentioned in the affidavit of the respondents. These petitions were filed by the petitioner-mill companies which are cotton textile units manufacturing blended yarn which became dutiable for the first time under Tariff Item 18-E which was added on March 16, 1972 in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1,944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioners that blended yarn was coated with sizing materials to impart strength to the yarn in the weaving process in all these composite mills and in that process the weight of the blended yarn increased by some 12 to 14 per cent. It is the case of the petitioners, that blended yarn remained blended yarn even after the sizing process. The excise duty was paid on the sizing materials. In all these mills the duty was charged by the excise authorities under Tariff Item 18-E on weight basis per kilogram ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR1017
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who was a Judge of this Court challenges in this petition the order of his transfer dated May 27, 1976 at Annexure 'A'. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under.2. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court on January 28, 1946. He practised at Bombay since his enrolment until April 30, 1960 and on the formation of the Gujarat State, he shifted his legal practice to this High Court where he practised till April 22, 1969. On April 23, 1969 he was appointed a Judge of the Gujarat High Court for a period of two years and was appointed a permanent puisne Judge on August 5, 1970. The petitioner' would retire on completion of the age of 62 years on January 5, 1981 and so, a period of about four years and six months was left for him to retire from service.3. The petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order to the Andhra Pradesh High Court without obtaining his consent, without consulting him and agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)0GLR186
Desai, J.1. The decisions of two Division Benches are conflicting on the issue as to whether a person who purchases the leased property along with arrears of rent prior to his purchase can evict a tenant in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that is why the said point is referred to us. The facts in all the civil revision applications are similar and we shall state briefly the facts in Civil Revision Application No. 533 of 1969, which are that the suit property is a part of Nondh No. 817 situated in the city of Surat. The leased property isused as a stable. The present owner purchased the property on August 4, 1966 from its previous owner with the right to recover the rent already due at the date of transfer from the defendanttenant. The rent was due from July 1, 1965, The plaintiff-landlord, therefore, gave a notice to the defendant-tenant demanding the rent due from July 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)1GLR159
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting question as to what is the effect of arbitration clause by way of condition precedent, which is otherwise known as Scott v. Averry clause, contained in a contract between an Indian suppliers and a foreign buyer for a foreign arbitral machinery for resolving disputes under the said contract on a suit filed in Indian Court without complying with the condition precedent, arises in these revision applications. The question arises in the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff-Company which is respondent before me (hereinafter referred to as 'the suppliers') entered into a contract of June 19, 1972 with the defendant-company, which is the petitioner before me (hereinafter referred to as '(he foreign purchasers') for sale and supply of 1000 metric tons of Indian groundnut extraction in bulk to be shipped in December, 1972 on board the ship to be named by the foreign purchasers at a price of 33-15 per metric ton FOS Bedi Port on Saurashtra coast in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR597
P.D. Desai, J.1. The appellant, who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner, is a partnership firm and it carries on business of transport of goods since 1950. Its area of operation is Western India and it has its head office at Baroda.2. Two persons, namely, Dahyabhai Himatlal Shah and his brother Vadilal Himatlal Shah, were the managing partners of the petitioner firm. Both these persons were detained under MISA in September 1974 and at present their detention is continued under COFEPOSA. However, since their detention, the business of the partnership firm is looked after by one Suresh Dahyabhai Shah, who is the son of one of the managing partners and their constituted attorney.3. There is a telephone connection at the petitioner-firm's head office at Baroda since last about twelve years. By a letter dated February 26, 1976 (Exhibit 'A'), the petitioner was informed by the Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Baroda Division, Baroda that its telephone connection to Baroda Auto ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1419
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In these two matters where before the Division Bench consisting of J. B. Mehta and P. D. Desai JJ. certain common questions of law regarding the validity and extent of operation of Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act) arose, the Division Bench felt that fundamental questions of widest amplitude had been raised in order to challenge the vires of Section 5-A and so the Division Bench decided that in view of the importance of the matter, the following two questions should be referred to a larger Bench.(1) Whether Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is retroactive so as to apply to orders of detention passed on or before July 1, 1975?(2) If so, whether it is ultra vires, either because it impinges upon the power of judicial review and impairs the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of t...
Tag this Judgment!