Gujarat Court July 1993 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.
K.C. Mani Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1845
Vaidya, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is - 'Whether there can be any hard and fast rule - or a straight-jacket formula whereby incidentally because the 'Enquiry Office' happens to be a trained personnel that by itself automatically vests any right in a delinquent facing the departmental proceedings to have a legal assistance of the lawyer?' 2. The facts situation giving rise to the above question to be briefly stated is to the effect that the petitioner Mr. K. C. Mani was appointed as a Technical Assistance in the year 1961, and thereafter, was selected as Superintendent in the year 1962. In the year 1968, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him wherein by an Order dated 30-1-1980, he was given punishment of compulsory retirement. The said order of the respondent-Corporation was challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by way of a writ petition, the same being Writ Petition No. 5693 of 1980 which ultimately came t...
Bharat Textile Works Vs. Workmen of Bharat Textile Works and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ922Guj
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The short question involved in this petition filed by the employer is whether the industrial dispute referred by the Government for adjudication could have been referred or not.2. The contention of the petitioner employer is that there is no notice of termination of the previous settlement and therefore, the reference is barred. On the other hand, it is submitted that the previous settlement was operative till March 31, 1987 and the charter of demand has been submitted on April 2, 1987 and thereafter several dates were fixed before the conciliation officer and on August 27, 1987 the matter was adjourned for negotiations for settlement andtime was granted till September 10, 1987 and the conciliation officer had further recorded that 'within this period if'the settlement is not arrived at, it is agreed by the parties that the case shall be admitted for conciliation proceedings'. On September 10, 1987 the employer filed his reply and objections and written submissions rai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Ninochaka A. Kothari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR595(Guj)
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. In the present reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question is referred to us for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cost of acquisition of the 300 shares in Alembic Chemicals Industries and 200 shares in Alembic Glass Industries, sold by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, should be determined on the basis of the actual cost of acquisition of these shares or on the basis of averaging the cost of the original shares and right shares/bonus shares received thereon ?'2. The assessee had in the relevant year sold 300 shares of Alembic Chemicals Industries and 200 shares of Alembic Glass Industries and the question arose as to computation of the capital gains arising from these sales, particularly the manner and method of computation of the cost price, to be taken into consideration. Accordingly the assessee, the purchase of shares of Alembic Che...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1822
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. The respondents in Special Civil Application No. 475 of 1990 reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1460 are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioner in the Special Civil Application is the respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal. Convenience suggests that we refer to the parties as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the Special Civil Application.2. The petitioner established a cement plant at Mahuva in Saurashtra. For manufacturing cement, the petitioner requires huge quantities of coat and it is stated that they are being purchased from Bilaspur Collieries and other Collieries and the coal is transhipped by railway wagons to the site of the factory of the petitioner at Kodinar and the manufactured product of the petitioner, viz., cement, is being despatched to the various destinations by railway wagons. With regard to the inward traffic of coal and the outward traffic of cement, a controversy has arisen as to whether the petitioner could avail ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›