Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-27-1977
Reported in : (1978)19GLR1126
..... given point of difference but such advice is certainly not an award within the meaning of the act. the essential difference between an arbitrator on the one hand and referee, mediator or well-wisher on the other, must always be kept in mind while deciding the question whether the clause relied on spells out an arbitration agreement. that is why sulaiman .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-24-1977
Reported in : (1978)19GLR751
..... . therefore, even though the education tribunal may not have any hierarchial subordination, so long as its decisions are capable of correction by the exercise of judicial supervision under the constitutional mediate of article 226, there would be clearly judicial subordination as envisaged in the aforesaid decision. it would be the saying that a writ of certiorari could always be issued in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-15-1977
Reported in : 114ITR302(Guj)
divan, c.j.1. in this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the land in question in an agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, and, therefore, whether the capital gains arising from the sale thereof is exempt from assessment to income-tax under the said act ?' 2. the facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : the assessment year under reference is 1969-70, the relevant previous year of account being samvat year 2024 which ended on october 21, 1968. the assessee is an individual and she and one, shantaben dahyabhai patel (wife of the assessee's husband's brother) jointly purchased two plots of land bearing survey nos. 51/1/1 and 51/1/2/2/2 of changispur village. these two plots were subsequently given final plot no. 65 of the town planning scheme no. 20 admeasuring about 2,360 square yards. the assessee had one-half share in the land bearing plot no. 65. the assessee agreed to sell the land of plot no. 65 to messrs. amit corporation, a partnership firm. amit corporation agreed to sell the land to manav flats co-operative housing society ltd. under an agreement of sale dated january 9, 1968. thereafter, by a sale deed dated september 4, 1968, the assessee sold her half undivided share in the said plot of land, namely, 1,180 square yards of land, to manav flats co-operative housing society ltd. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-12-1977
Reported in : (1978)19GLR1136
b.k. mehta, j.1. this second appeal, at the instance of the original defendant, arises out of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff in the court of civil judge (s.d.) godhra for possession and mesne profits of a residential building which, she claimed, had been gifted to her by her father in july, 1968, and also for possession of moveables lying in the said house and, in the alternative, for a sum of rs. 3799/- being the damages on account of the said moveables.2. the suit was resisted by the defendant, who happens to be the brother of the plaintiff, contending, inter alia, that the gift in question was neither valid nor legal.3. the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the gift was not legal and valid, because the conditions required under the mohmedan law for completion of the said gift were wanting.4. in appeal, at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff, the learned assistant judge, panchmahals at godhra, reversed the order of dismissal of the suit, as in his opinion all the three essential conditions for making a valid gift under the mohmedan law, namely, (i) a declaration of gift by donor; (ii) acceptance, express or implied, by and on behalf of the donee, and (iii) delivery of the subject matter of the gift by donor to donee, have been established by the evidence. he, therefore, granted a decree as prayed for by his judgment and order of october 22, 1974 which is the subject matter of this second appeal before me.5. mr. mehta, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-08-1977
Reported in : (1978)0GLR234; 113ITR443(Guj)
b.j. divan, c.j.1. the petitioner herein challenges the order of the commissioner of income-tax, gujarat iii, the respondent herein, in respect of an application made by the petitioner for waiving the penalty in exercise of the power conferred by section 273a of the income-tax act, 1961. the petitioner is an income-tax assessee and for assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 19711-72, certain penalties were imposed by the income-tax officer after passing the assessment orders. for each of three years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, penalties under section 273(b) were imposed and for the year 1970-71, in addition to the penalty under section 237(b), penalty under section 271(1)(a) was imposed. the income-tax act was amended with effect from october 1, 1975, and from that day section 273a was inserted. under that section, the commissioner of income-tax has the power to reduce or waive penalties under section 271(1)(a) and also, under section 273(b) if the conditions mentioned in section 273a are satisfied. the petitioner contended before the respondent that all the conditions prescribed by section 273a have been fulfilled in her case and, therefore, she should be given relief in respect of these penalties under section 273a. by his order dated november 26, 1976, a copy of which is annexed as annexure 'b' to the petition, the respondent rejected the application and the ground for ejection of the application was that the assessee had filed appeals to the appellate assistant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-09-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Guj216; (1978)0GLR315
thakkar, j.1. one will have to reflect a great deal before saying 'what is in a name?' for everything centers around a name (cibatul? simatul?) in the battle between two business houses giving rise to the present appeal. and the question debated before the court is as to whether the trial court was right in holding that the name 'simatul chemical industries pvt. ltd.' under which the appellant-defendant is doing business is so deceptively similar to the name of the respondent-plaintiff 'cibatul limited' that the public at large and the consumers are likely to be deceived into believing that they are dealing with the same company or companies having some connection or association with each other and that in order to protect the plaintiff company from its goodwill being invaded and in order to' prevent confusion among the public at large and consumers, it was necessary to restrain the defendant company from carrying on business under any name and style comprising the words 'simatul' or 'cibatul' or any other word comprising the plaintiff's name and style so as to represent or induce into believing that the defendant-company is the same as the plaintiff-company or that if the goods manufactured and sold by the defendantcompany are the goods manufactured and sold by the plaintiff-company2. a public limited company known as the atul products limited isengaged in the manufacture of dyes and chemicals of various types since 1947. in collaboration with a swiss co. with international .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Guj102; (1977)GLR738
j.b. mehta, ag. c.j.1. in this petition the two petitioners who were appointed as class iii employees on the establishment of the civil courts at rajpipla and jambusar, in the district of broach, by the district judge, broach, have challenged the final order of the district judge along with the order of the high court at annexures g and h as per which they have been removed from service. the petitioners had been charge-sheeted by the district judge on dec. 22. 1971, for falsely identifying three persons before the then civil judge, junior division, and judicial magistrate, f. c. savli, as per ex. a. in the disciplinary enquiry which was instituted on this charge sheet at annexure a, the petitioners had admitted the charges and prayed for mercy. the district judge by the order dated june 5, 1974 at annexure d. passed the order to withhold future promotions with permanent effect. the high court, however, considered the punishment grossly inadequate and, therefore, under r. 23 of the gujarat civil services (discipline and appeal) rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the rules', issued a show cause notice at annexure e, on sept. 6, 1974 to enhance the punishment to one of removal from service. after hearing the petitioners the high court passed an order at annexure g, dated dec. 30, 1974,observing that it was not safe to continue persons like the delinquents who have committed a serious and grave misconduct in the service of the judicial department. the penalty imposed upon .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-31-1977
Reported in : 109ITR177(Guj)
d.a. desai, j.1. company petitions nos. 10 and 12 of 1975 are filed by wood polymer limited and bengal hotels private limited, respectively, under section 391(2) of the companies act, praying for according sanction to a scheme of amalgamation of the afore-mentioned two companies. wood polymer limited is a public limited company and it is the transferee-company. bengal hotels private limited is a private limited company and is the transferor-company. the scheme submitted to the court for sanction involves amalgamation of the transferor-company with the transferee-company and amongst others it envisages dissolution of the transferor company without winding up.2. transferor-company and transferee-company both filed separate company applications nos. 40 of 1974 and 41 of 1974, respectively, requesting the court to give directions for convening meetings of the creditors and members to whom compromise and/or arrangement was offered. in the case of the transferee-company, j. b. metha j. by his order dated 23rd october, 1974, directed separate meetings of equity and preference shareholders and unsecured creditors having a claim over rs. 5,000 to be convened separately for approving with or without modification the scheme of compromise and/ or arrangement. in the case of the transferor-company, direction givenwas that a meeting of the members of the company be convened for approving with or without modification the compromise and/or arrangement offered to them. mr. v. h. thakore, then .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-06-1977
Reported in : 48CompCas438(Guj); (1977)GLR42; (1978)0GLR192; (1977)47CompCas151
d.a. desai, j. 1. a question touching the jurisdiction of this court is raised at this state by way of preliminary objection in this petition. the petition is filed under section 155 of the companies act, 1956, prying for rectification of the register and for reliefs under sections 397 and 398. after the notices were issued to the company and other respondents calling upon them to show cause why the petition would not be admitted, respondents who were then on record appeared, and raised contentions that a composite petition for relief under section 155 and sections 397 and 398 of the companies act would not lie because the relief under sections 397 and 398 is only available to a member of a company whose membership is not in dispute and as the petitioner in this petition also seek a relief by way of rectification of register, their membership being in dispute in dispute, such a composite petition cannot be entertained by the court. 2. the contention was overruled as per decision a dated 26th june, 1975 [vide gulabrai kalidas naik v. laxmidas lallubhai patel  47 comp cas 151 (guj)] admitting the petition for relief under section 155 and keeping the prayer for relief under sections 397 and 398 a in a abeyance till relief under section 155 is determined. directors were given for filing affidavit-in-reply and date was fixed for admission documents. thereafter, the court, after taking into consideration rival contentions, framed the issues that arise for determination in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-12-1977
Reported in : 124ITR733(Guj)
j.b. mehta, j.1. in the first reference the question which is posed by the tribunal is as under : 'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in disallowing the remuneration paid by the huf to its karta, shri shankerlal h. dave, for all the three years under reference ?' that question had arisen in this reference for the three years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. the other reference no. 82 of 1975 is on the identical question for the subsequent two years, i.e., 1970-71 and 1971-72, and they are disposed of by this common order. we would state the facts so far as the first reference is concerned as the facts are identical for the purposes of the other reference. 2. the assessee, an huf (shri shankerlal harishankar dave) in question, was at the relevant time constituted of the karta. shri shankerlal h. dave, his wife, shardaben, and their son, pramod shankerlal dave, and two daughters, all children being minors. the huf was a partner through its karta in the following four firms in the first two years and in five partnership firms for the subsequent years covered by the other reference as under : 1. m/s. h. k. dave, bhavnagar. 2. m/s. h. k. dave, morvi. 3. m/s. dave brothers, bhavnagar. 4. m/s. dinkar brothers, bhavnagar. 5. m/s. deesawala & co. 3. besides shares in the partnership firms, the huf's assessable income was in respect of the self-occupied property to the tune of rs. 2,500 and there was also some income relating to dividends, .....Tag this Judgment!