Gujarat Court November 1995 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.
Shah Maheshchandra Gulabchand Vs. Regional Manager (S.D.R.), Bank of B ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR458
C.K. Thakker, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner wants this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash, and set aside departmental proceedings initiated against him by the Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 1. A declaration is sought that an action of the respondents in holding inquiry against the petitioner after acquittal by a Criminal Court is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. A prayer is also made to direct the respondents to pay full back wages and to extend all other benefits to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as a Clerk in the respondent Bank at Udhna Branch. On February 12, 1988, it was noticed that on a previous day, i.e., on February 11, 1988, there was a shortage of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner was asked about the short fall of the amount. No complaint was filed immediately but the petitioner was asked to pay the amount. The petitioner made an offer to pay the amount 'under protes...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Subhash Trading Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Guj)121; [1996]221ITR110(Guj)
R. Balia, J.1. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court in IT Ref. No. 102 of 1981 decided on 30th April, 1981, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' had submitted statement of case and referred the following two questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 1047/Ahd/78-79 relating to asst. yr. 1973-74 : 1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 92,894 imposed by the IAC under s. 271(1)(c) could not be justified 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that though book result of the assessee was rejected, since there was no evidence to conclude a positive finding that there was concealment, penalty cannot be sustained under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is correct in law ?' We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts as appearing from the statement of case are that, during the course of assessment, the ITO rejected the books of account maintained by t...
The Competent Authority, Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Dhamji Vijendra Meh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1997Guj106; (1997)1GLR177
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. this group of petitions, the petitioners-Competent Authority, Gujarat Housing Board has approached this Court in second round.2. The Gujarat Housing Board had built tenaments in 326 Middle Income Group (M.I.G.) at Bhavnagar. The present respondents were allotted premises on hire purchase basis. In the year 1984, many of the allottees having not paid rent equivalent to amount of instalments due and payable under the agreement entered into between into between the Housing Board and the allottees, the Competent Officer appointed under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act of 1972') issued notice to the allottees calling upon them to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made. The competent officer, after following the procedure laid down under the Gujarat Act of 1972, passed the order of eviction on 25-11-1986. The allottees against whom the order of eviction was pass...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Marbles Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Guj)30; [1996]219ITR655(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. At the instance of the CIT, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following three questions of law arising out of its order dt. 24th Aug., 1981 in ITA No. 1224/Ahd/80 relating to the asst. yr. 1974-75 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the ITO was not justified in invoking the provisions of s. 147(b) of the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee for set off of carried forward losses against the income of the year 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-company was an industrial company ?' 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the assessee had claimed set off in respect of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. In the first instance the ITO ha...
General Secretary, Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Employees U ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)3GLR112
S.M. Soni, J.1. In all these matters, common question involved is whether Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal is a 'Court' within the meaning of 'subordinate Court' as contemplated in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Labour Court is established under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) and Industrial Tribunal is established under Section 7A of the Act. If one also looks at the powers which they can exercise, they are given power to exercise for the matters pertaining to different Schedules. If one reads Secs. 7 and Section 7A, they are pari materia, Secs. 7 of the Act empowers Labour Court to adjudicate disputes specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the said Act. Tribunals established under Section 7A of the Act empower adjudication of disputes relating to and specified in the Second Schedule or Third Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them un...
Kamlesh Dinubhai AmIn and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Etc. Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2843
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. These three appeals first one by Kamlesh Dinubhai Amin and six others, second one by Bipinchandra Hiralal and third one by the State of Gujarat against Rajesh Amrutlal Sompura and 14 others, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 29-6-1988 rendered in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1986, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, wherein out of 21 accused persons who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 114, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC, at the end of the trial, eight were ordered to be convicted for the same and sentenced to R.I. for life and rest of others were acquitted as stated in detail in the impugned order.2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, instead of re-narrating the entire prosecution case in detail here, we deem it quite proper and accordingly refer and rely upon the same as reproduced in para 2 of the impugned judgment.3. At trial, all the 21 accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be ...
Bhagwandas D. Tandel Vs. S.N. Sinha, Director General of Police and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR782
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside order Annexure - 'A', dated September 2, 1995, passed by the Director General of Police, respondent No. 1 herein, by which the petitioner, who was serving as Police Inspector, Valsad, is transferred to Anti-Terrorist Squad ('A.T.S.' for short) and all consequential actions taken in pursuance of the said order, being illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector in 1972. He was promoted as Police Inspector ('P. I.' for short) in 1993. He was sent to A.T.S. by an order dated May 5, 1993. He completed his tenure successfully in A.T.S. which was for one-and-half years and thereafter, as per the policy of the Government, he was given choice of posting as P. I., Surat City in December, 1994. Without any reason whatsover, within a short span of less than four months, he was transferred to Valsad in April, 1995. According to th...
Dineshkumar Mohanlal Gajjar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)3GLR130
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent-Authorities, refusing to give 6 marks of grace in Paper 1 of Pre-Service Training Examination. A prayer is also made to set aside an order, terminating his services and by issuing necessary direction, to reinstate the petitioner in service as Junior Clerk by granting continuity in service, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, increment, arrears of salary, and other benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a handicapped person. In 1984, he was called for interview for the post of Junior Clerk and was selected. He was appointed to the post of Clerk in 1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. He successfully completed period of probation. The petitioner had to clear Pre-Service Training Examination in three trials. He appeared in the said Examination in 1989, 1990 and 1991. He, however, failed in all the three examinations. Hence, in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›