Gujarat Court December 1995 Judgments
Patel Rajeshkumar Mathurbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR147
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The Special Civil Application No. 8060 of 1994 has been decided by the Court on 26th September, 1995. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the could not appear in the case when the same was called for hearing as he filed a leave note on 21-9-1995 for two days (25-9-1995 and 26-9-1995). The ground of absence which has been given by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not sufficient. The petitioners have not produced any proof whatsoever to show that the Counsel has filed a leave note on 21-9-1995. Misc. Civil Application is not supported by any affidavit.3. The Counsel for the petitioners has not filed his own affidavit or affidavit of any of the petitioners. Generally, this Court notifies the leave of the Advocates who file the leave notes. The learned Counsel for the petitioners did not file on record the notification of the Court where his leave note has been accepted for 25-9-1995 and 26-9-...
Tag this Judgment!Lataben Vs. Rajyaguru, Administrative Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1997)1GLR720
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Sufferings of the petitioner, despite the fact that this Court on 29-1-1982 decided the earlier petition in her favour and order of dismissal from service has not only been quashed but also declared to be null and void and ineffective, still continues. How the respondents treat the decision of this Court is clearly exhibited in this litigation. Yet another aspect to be noted is how this Court is helpless to give a person, whose dismissal order has been held to be nullity by this Court on 21-9-1982, all the reliefs for twelve years. Here the system is to be blamed. Otherwise, this category of cases need to be dealt with forthwith.2. The petitioner who was employed by Kheda District Panchayat at Nadiad was dismissed from service vide order dated 11-8-1977 giving effect from 18-7-1975. This order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 877 of 1988. That writ petition was decided by this Court on 29-1-1982 a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Mahmad @ Munno Usmanbhai Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR821
H.R. Shelat, J.1. The then learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Baroda acquitted the respondent charged with the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 Part 2 and Section 201, Indian Penal Code, delivering the judgment on 21st July 1990 in Sessions Case No. 206 of 1989 on his file. The appellant-State, being aggrieved by the same, has preferred this appeal before us.2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that Bhikhiben alias Bhagwatiben, the daughter of Ramanbhai Panchal residing at village Bhoj had gone to Utiya along with Shantaben and Surajben as Arvindbhai, the son of Shanabhai Kalabhai, was to marry. She joined the marriage party. After the Samaiya was over, the respondent showing the knife frightened her and succeeded in taking her aside. He then took her to some isolated place where he showing the knife intimidated her. Being put to fear of instant death or hurt she succumbed to the ill-will of the prurient respondent. She was made to put off her clothes and lie d...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhbhai Kanj1bhai Thakkar Vs. Taraben Kantilal Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR67
S.D. Shah, J.1. Admit.2. Mrs. Sonal D. Vyas appears for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Second Appeal No. l 71 of 1995 and for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Second Appeal No. 172 of 1995 and waives service of admission on behalf of respective respondents. The presence of remaining respondents is not needed for the purpose of deciding this Appeal and hence their names are ordered to be deleted. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, printing is dispensed with and the appeals are heard today.3. These two Second Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by Assistant Judge, Valsad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1986 dated 31st August, 1995 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1990 dated 31st August, 1995. Since a common substantial question of law is involved in both these appeals, though on different facts and arising from different Civil suits, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.4. Both the parties have agr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Guj)102; [1996]220ITR153(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These four references have been submitted by the Tribunal in respect of the same assessee raising identical issues arising out of the same facts relating to asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. 2. The relevant facts appearing from the statement of the case in IT Ref. No. 336 of 1982 are that the assessee had entered into an agreement with J. R. Geigy Basle w.e.f. 1st Jan., 1956 onwards and was getting assistance in the manufacture of wide range of products listed in the agreement as well as vide supplementary agreement from time to time. Tinopal was one such product the assessee was licensed to manufacture under the provisions of this agreement. In the manufacture of Tinopal cyanuric chloride is one of the raw materials and was being consumed in large quantities. Until the assessee decided to manufacture the said raw material by himself, the same was bought from the market. The assessee entered in another supplementary agreement on 14th July, 1965 for ma...
Tag this Judgment!Banyan and Berry Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Guj)127; [1996]222ITR831(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' by its order dt. 6th April, 1993, has referred the following questions of law to this Court for its decision which are said to have arisen out of the ITA No. 5230/Ahd/1991 relating to the asst. yr. 1988-89 : The questions which have been referred at the instance of the assessee in RA No. 709/Ahd/92 are : ' (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. 1,48,24,876 became taxable in the hands of the firm which according to the assessee stood dissolved through dissolution deed dt. 16th Aug., 1984 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case would be governed by the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1984) 154 ITR 148 and not by the Supreme Court decision in CWT vs . Arvind Narottam : [1988]173ITR479(SC) and by the Madras High Court decision in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2732]; (1996)2GLR228
1. Prayers made in para 10(AAA) are not pressed. Other prayers as contained in an amendment dated December 19, 1995 moved by Mr. Shabani, learned Counsel for the petitioner are also not pressed. This Special Civil Application has been flied by Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat on behalf of the workmen enlisted in Annexure 'A' filed with the Special Civil Application. It is submitted that all these workmen enlisted in Annexure 'A' were working with respondent No. 4 who was holding the contract labour of the Gujarat Electricity Board. The period of contract of respondent No. 4 was to be over on September 30, 1995 and respondent No. 5 was given contract by the Gujarat Electricity Board for a period of one year commencing from October 1, 1995 (sic). Respondent No. 4, therefore, terminated the services of these workmen as his contract period was going to be over on September 30, 1995. The present Special Civil Application was filed on September 28, 1995 and on September 29, 1995 notice returnable by ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Jalaram Agencies and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1998)3GLR1952
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Whether the trial Court, after the receipt of complaint against the respondent-accused before it, right at the very threshold of its preliminary inquiry while trying to find out whether it was empowered to take cognizance of the alleged offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (for short 'The Act') was justified, firstly in summarily dismissing the complaint on the alleged ground that the complainant was not duly authorised either by the State Government or the Central Government as for that purpose, the Collector cannot be said to be the 'State' as required under Section 12AA(1)(e) of the Act, and secondly, that too without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the complainant to prove his due authorisation in said regard? In other words, whether such important questions which many a time are mixed questions of law and fact can be decided without anything brought on the record on mere oral arguments? These, in short and substance...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kiritkumar S. Sheth and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ1103; [1998]93CompCas125(Guj); (1997)1GLR824
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A short but substantial question which has come to surface in this first appeal is about the eligibility of the victim of bodily injury due to the alleged negligence of a medical practitioner so as to claim compensation on the basis of tortious liability. 2. The appellant, the original defendant No. 2-insurance company, has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree record by the learned 4th joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda, on February 28, 1995, in Special Civil Suit No. 404 of 1983 by invoking the provisions of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Respondent No. 1 is original defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff, Leelaben Gordhanbhai, instituted the aforesaid suit for compensation and damages of an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs against the doctor, defendant No. 1, and the insurance company, inter alia, alleging that on account of negligence of the doctor, she sustained an injury to her urinary bladd...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Mardias Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Guj)524; [1996]220ITR94(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 13th Aug., 1994 an order under s. 269UD (was passed) for purchase of property in question which was the subject matter of an agreement to sale between the petitioner and the vendors. The purchase price was fixed to be Rs. 52 lakhs. The entire purchase money was paid by the transferor to the transferees. Under the order itself it was directed by the Appropriate Authority to keep the aforesaid amount payable by Central Government in personal deposit account of Appropriate Authority until leasehold rights.2. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this petition on two grounds. Firstly the order by the Appropriate Authority neither records a finding about the fair market value of the property sought to be purchased as on the date of agreement to sell without which no determination about undervaluation of consideration stated in the agreement could have been made, nor the order records a finding that the apparent consideration h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »