Gujarat Court January 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dr. M.D. Indrodia Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1063
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of suspension of the petitioner (as Medical Officer), dated 29th July, 1991. The suspension is on the allegation that the petitioner is charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, for having accepted illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 10/-. Ordinarily, this fact would justify suspension of a Public servant. However, in the present case, there are some extraordinary facts. The incident had taken place five years ago on 12th Jan. 1986 and the F.I.R. is lodged on 15-1-1986 by the Anti-corruption Bureau Police Inspector. It states that on the basis of some (unspecified) reliable information, the petitioner Medical Officer though receiving non-practice allowance, was indulging in private practice illegally and collecting fees ranging from Rs. 5 to Rs. 20/- from each patient and therefore, a trap was laid with a bogus patient and two panchas. The bogus patient stated to the Medical Officer th...
Kantilal Moghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1992
Reported in: (1992)1GLR561
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner, who was a Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise (Class-11) seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 9th April, 1986 removing him from service.2. By charge-sheet dated 1st September, 1982 issued against the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed misconduct on the following counts enumerated in the charge-sheet:(1) While he was serving as temporary Prohibition & Excise Superintendent and was in In-Charge of Amreli District, he had issued D.S. VII licence for holding 350 bottles of alcohol and molasses for the period from 19-5-1981 to 31-3-1982 to one Jitendra Vasantrai Parikh and thereby flouted the instructions which were given by the Government for not issuing any such new dealers licence in respect of molasses and alcohol.(2) That he had issued D.S. VII licence to one Rameshchandra Somaya, resident of Tibi, Taluka Jaffrabad, Dist. Amreli on 29th March, 1981 for selling denatured spirit.(3) Though an application made by...
Dilipkumar Amrutlal Ganatra Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1460; (1992)2GLR1471
ORDER Food & Civil Supplies Department 14, Sardar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Sachivalaya, GANDHINAGAR. Dated 30th October, 1991.No. PRL/1191/2 72/Spl: In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (No. 7 of 1980), the Government of Gujarat, hereby directs that the person known as Shri Dilipkumar Amratlal Ganatra, in respect of whom a Detention Order No. DTN/ECA/10/91, dated 9-9-1991 shall be granted parole to the detenu for a period of 7 days (seven days), i.e., from 4th November, 1991 to 10th November, 1991 on his agreeing to abide by the conditions specified below:(1) He shall be of good bahaviour during the period of his temporary release from his detention (hereinafter referred to as the said period).(2) He shall not attend to his business nor indulge in any activity which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities during the said period.(3) During the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramanlal Nagindas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Guj)77; [1992]195ITR9(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred to the High Court for its opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the following questions : At the Revenue's instance : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income received by Ramanlal from the partnership firm, Messrs. Nahalchand Dhanjibhai and Co., during the previous year under consideration was taxable in his hands in his capacity as karta of the smaller Hindu undivided family comprising himself, his wife and their two unmarried daughters (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share incomes derived by Rajendrakumar and Dilipkumar two minor sons of partner, Ramanlal, from the partnership firm, Messrs. Nahalchand Dhanjibhai and Co., during the previous ye...
Gandhidham Nagarpalika Adipur (Kutch) Vs. R.C. Israni and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ432Guj
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The grievance voiced by the Petitioner in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India relates to non-acceptance of the settlement arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 in toto by the Industrial Tribunal while making its award on October 24, 1979 in Reference (IT) No. 18 of 1978. 2. It may be mentioned at this stage that this petition is purported to have been made both under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. What challenged in this petition, as aforesaid, is the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Such award can be challenged only under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Jashubhai Hiralal Gandhi v. Competent Authority & Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad reported in (1990) 2 Guj LH 609. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Jashubhai Hiralal Gandhi (supra). In that view of the matter, we treat this ...
Miscellaneous Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1065; (1993)ILLJ695Guj
Majmudar, J.1. This Spl. C.A. is moved by Misc. Mazdoor Sabha through its Secretary on behalf of its members who were workmen working with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are joined as constituted attorneys in charge of the said concern while respondent No. 6 is joined through its Managing Director, being parent company whose wholly owned subsidiary is respondent No. 3 industries. 2. The case of the petitioner-Union is that services of all the employees working with respondent No. 3-Company were terminated illegally on February 3, 1988 by notice at Annexure 'B' without following the provisions of Secs. 25F, 25FFA, 25N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) and Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. Respondent No. 3 was registered as a private Company on December 20, 1982. According to the petitioner, one of the objects of the company, as seen from the Articles of Association, was to carry on business of ma...
Trikamlal Manilal Shah Vs. Musamiya Isam Haiderbux Razvi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Guj155; (1992)2GLR1014
ORDER1. This is the tenant's revision application under S. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act', directed against the judgment and order passed on 13th Sept. 1979 in Civil Appeal No. 357 of 1976 by the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, reversing the trial Court's judgment and decree dismissing the respondent landlord's suit.2 - 4. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 5. The learned counsel for the parties in this revision application have been heard at length. Two questions arise for determination in this revision application; one is with regard to the decree for possession passed by the Appellate Bench of the Ahmedabad Small Cause Court directing the petitioner-tenant to hand-over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent-landlord on the ground of arrears of rent as was held to be available under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and the second is wit...
Amichand C. Shah Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR401(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner is being taxed in the status of Hindu undivided family under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, since a number of years. The petitioner submitted the returns of wealth-tax for the concerned assessment years 1972-73 to 1978-79 with the statement of rental income which showed the rent due on the first day of the calendar years, the rent accrued during the year, the rent received in cash during the year and the balance due at the end of the year. In spite of the fact that such balance due at the end of the year was specifically shown, it was not included in the net wealth of the petitioner and the Wealth-tax Officer did not include the same in the assessment of wealth. The petitioner was following the said patterns since prior to 1972-73 and had continued it up to 1978-79. On the basis of the said returns, the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16(3) of the Act had passed the assessment order after investigation of the case. 2. Ther...
Testeels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Guj)320; [1994]205ITR230(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, Actg.C.J.1. The Tribunal has referred to us for our opinion the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that amounts mentioned below were not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : Rs.(a) Advertisement (local) 25,825(b) 1/2 salary of Mr. T.S.K. Chari 25,000(c) Bank guarantee charges 93,024(d) Interest on export credits 10,98,881(e) Membership fees (for institutions outof India) 48,867(f) Interest-Central Bank 2,098(g) Freight (up to destination out of India) 4,93,359(h) Insurance (including insurance coveredup to the point of destination) 2,34,539(i) Packing material 49,945(j) Tower testing charges 2,07,344(k) Fabrication (monies spent out of India) 16,14,703----------------38,93,585 ?'---------------- 2. The assessee is a public limited company and the assessment year under reference is 1977-78, the year of account being the financial year ending on ...
Rajan P. Shah and Nilavati P. Shah Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR280(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. In these petitions, the notice dated August 11, 1981, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Circle IIB (Spl.), Surat, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is challenged on the ground that the said notice is illegal and without jurisdiction as the petitioners in both the petitions have disclosed the true facts at the time of completion of assessment proceedings for the year 1973-74. 2. These two petitions are heard together because they are based on the same facts. The petitioner (Shri Rajan P. Shah) in Special Civil Application No. 4057 of 1981, is the son of the petitioner (Smt. Nilavati P. Shah) in Special Civil Application No. 4058 of 1981. These petitions pertain to the assessment year 1973-74. 3. The petitioners submitted their return under section 139 of the Act along with the statement of total income (annexure-A) and copies of accounts in the firm of M/s. V. Raj and Co., with a footnote that for construction of the bu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »