Gujarat Court March 1994 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.
Kalaben Dashrathlal Kavi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR877
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Shri Dave for the Respondents.The order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 20th April 1993 under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, respondent No. 1 took into suo motu revision die order passed by the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 19th July 1990 in U.L.C. Case Nos. Vejalpur-1124 and 1132 and modified it by holding that die holding of petitioner No. 1 was in excess of the ceiling limit by 420.66 square metres and of petitioner No. 2 by 57 square metres.2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition. Suffice it to say that pursuant to the prescribed form filled in by the petitioners separately under Section 6(1) of the Act with respect to their holding within me urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad, respond...
ibrahim Osman Jasraya Vs. Addl. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Gujarat, Hom ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1295
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioners who are detenus have filed the present petitions challenged the orders of detention passed against them by the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Home Department, Gandhinagar dated 19-7-1993 exercising powers under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1975 (for short the 'Act'), on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods, it is necessary to detain the petitioners and accordingly the order is passed on 19-7-1993.2. The petitioners were served the orders on the same day along with the grounds of detention.3. On perusal of the grounds of detention, it appears that one vessel named MSV YA-AL-RAZAK-BDI-777 had left Sharjah with cargo rubber tyres waste/scrap on 25-9-1992 and was likely to arrive at Mundra Port with gold biscuits secreted in a vessel. On receiving this information, officers of the Customs and DRI kept watch and they were able to locate...
Mamad Abbas Jasraya Vs. Addl. Chief Secretary Government of Gujarat, H ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1209
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioners who are detenus have filed the present petitions challenging the orders of detention passed against them by the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Home Department, Gandhinagar dated 19-7-1993 exercising powers under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'), on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods, it is necessary to detain the petitioners and accordingly the order is passed on 19-7-1993.2. The petitioners were served the orders on the same day along with the grounds of detention.3. On perusal of the grounds of detention, it appears that one vessel named M.S.V. YA-AL-RAZAK-BDI-777 had left Sharjah with cargo robber tyres waste/scrap on 25-9-1992 and was likely to arrive at Mundra Port with gold biscuits secreted in a vessel. On receiving this information, officers of the Customs and D.R.I, kept watch and they were able to...
Official Liquidator, Swashraya Benefit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.H. Talati and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas197(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J.1. These two company applications filed under section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, raise interesting questions of interpretation of the provisions of rules 260 and 261 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read in the context of Form No. 121 prescribed under rule 260 of the said Rules. 2. Shortly stated the question raised before this court is as to whether a summons filed in the prescribed Form No. 121 under section 543(1) which contains only the form of declaration or order for which the application is made (without giving details of particulars and the ultimate relief sought) and which fails to set out the grounds of the application or the grounds on which the declaration or order is sought, is legally competent or is liable to be rejected as such as it fails to set out briefly the grounds on which the declaration or order is sought. The court is also required to consider in this context the question as to whether the aforesaid omission would be fatal so as to res...
Smt. Chandramati D. Thakore Vs. Jayantilal Dahyalal Jani and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR638
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The order dated February 14, 1984 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in Application No. 148 of 1982 is the subject-matter of challenge in these two petitions which are instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In Special Civil Application No. 4324 of 1984, the declaration granted by the Tribunal to the effect that the respondent No. 1 therein is entitled to receive the compensation equivalent to 13 months' salary including allowances on the basis of the last pay, is challenged whereas in Special Civil Application No. 4326 of 1984, the declaration granted by the Tribunal to the effect that the respondent No. 1 therein is entitled to receive the compensation equivalent to 16 months' salary including the allowances on the basis of the last pay she was receiving in the School is challenged. Both these petitions arise out of the common order dated February 14, 1984 and, therefore, they are being disposed of by th...
Tejal R. AmIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Guj)47; [1994]208ITR103(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. It is the say of the petitioner that she is a paid employee of two concerns, namely, (i) B. L. Fuse Gear Pvt. Ltd., and (ii) Insutech Industries. The respondent has attached her salary with these two concerns and asked them to pay the amount of salary as and when due forthwith to the Income-tax Department. The said notices dated October 23, 1993, are produced at annexure 'C' to this petition. As per the said notices, the petitioner's employers are informed that as per the record an amount of Rs. 2,18,887 for the accounting year 1987-88 is outstanding in the case Shri Rahul N. Amin and that for the demand outstanding in the case of Shri Rahul N. Amin, Smt. Tejal R. Amin, who is a debtor of Shri Rahul N. Amin, has been issued notices under section 226(3) of the Act and she has failed to discharge her liabilities as per the notice; therefore, she is deemed to be an assessee in default and it personally liable to pay the outstanding demand of her husband; so, her salary whi...
Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commiss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)122CTR(Guj)53; [1995]212ITR185(Guj)
M. B. SHAH J. - The petitioner, Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Udhana, has challenged the notices dated March 30, 1983 (annexures 'D-1' and 'D-2'), issued by the respondent under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The said notices are issued for reopening the assessments for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively.It is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid notices are on the face of them illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. It is contended that for the assessment year 1978-79, assessment was made by an order dated March 31, 1981 (annexure 'A'), under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessment came to be made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) by an order dated March 30, 1982 (annexure 'B'), under section 143(3) of the Act. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, when an order is passed under section 143...
Sarwarben Temas Khambata and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Guj)355; [1995]216ITR850(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. On April 21, 1994, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell the property under consideration to petitioner No. 4. The petitioners submitted Form No. 37-I to the appropriate authority as required under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on June 27, 1994. On July 1, 1994, the petitioners were asked by the Valuation Officer of the appropriate authority to furnish certain information and documents. On July 7, 1994, the petitioners furnished the requisite documents to the Valuation Officer. 2. Thereafter, on September 14, 1994, i. e., virtually after a period of two-and-a-half months, the appropriate authority issued notice under section 269UD(1A) of the Act to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why an order of pre-emptive purchase should not be made of the property under consideration and the appropriate authority fixed the date September 26, 1994, for the hearing of the matter. 3. I...
Vedva Vaghari Ramesh Ramabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)1GLR901
S.D. Dave, J.1. In this Conviction Appeal instead of concerning with the merits of the case, I feel, I am concerned with a technical off-shoot. The question before me is in respect of the real intent and spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions contained under Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code, together with the provisions contained under Paragraph 125 of the Criminal Manual.2. The appellant accused came to be prosecuted for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Sees. 376 and 502 of Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 7-6-1991 at village Bhilwada under Palitana taluka of Bhavnagar district, the appellant accused ravished the minor prosecutrix against her will and without consent. The proceedings have resulted in the judgment of conviction and sentence, under which the appellant accused is sentenced to the R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to the R.I. of six months for the offence punishable under Sect...
ideal Sheet Metal Stampings and Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR972(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred for the opinion of this court the following questions under section 18 of the companies (profits) Surtax Act read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 74,693 deposited with the Industrial Development Bank of India in lieu of surcharge on income-tax under the Finance Act, 1984, was not deductible from the chargeable profits computed under the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was not deductible while computing the chargeable profits under the First Schedule to the Companies (profits) Surtax Act, 1964?' 2. As regards question No. 1, dealing with a similar questi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »