Gujarat Court April 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.
Ganshyambhai and Brothers Vs. Gujarat State Construction Corporation a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR302
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether the impugned order rejecting an application to extend time for arbitration proceedings exercising powers under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is legal and valid, is the theme of the present revision application. 2. By this revision under Section 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code for short), the petitioner has questioned the order dated 14-12-1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, dismissing Civil Misc. Application No. 130 of 1985 submitted by the petitioner firm for extension of time for arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator. 3. A few material facts may firstly be stated to examine and appreciate the merits of this petition. A dispute relating to the tender work for construction of a water reservoir at village Gadkal, near Ankeshwar, between the petitioner firm and respondent No. 1 Gujarat State Constructions Corporation (GSCC for short) was referred to respondent No. 2 as a sole a...
Gulam Mohmad Nurminya Kazi Vs. Prakash Devendra Shantilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj94
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. A short but interesting question which has come up for adjudication in this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code' for short) is 'Whether an appeal is competent from an order granting an application for an order to set aside the decree passed 'ex parte' under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code undrer Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code?' The petitioner is the original defendant against whom the respondent-original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Valsad, for possession of the rented room. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as arraigned in the plaint, for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. In the suit, summons could not be served by the plaintiff on the defendant despite several attempts. Therefore, the plaintiff had requested the court to serve the defendant with summons by substituted service. The trial court had granted such request of the plaintiff and the defendant was serv...
Shah Shaileshkumar Vinodkumar and anr. Vs. Ashokkumar Vajeraj
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj102
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. The opponent filed Summary Suit Mo. 4587 of 1988 against the applicants in the City 'Civil Court at Ahmedabad for recovery of an amount of Rs. 53,908.77 with running interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The trial Court passed a decree on 28-7-1989 against the applicants. The opponent-plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business of cloth and the applicants are also dealing in business of cloth. Applicant No. 2 is the partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and applicant No. 1 is a partner thereof. Between the parties, there was business , relationship. The opponent-firm filed the suit for non-payment of dues arising out and during the course of the business transactions. The suit was decreed ex parte.2. The applicants filed an application for restoration and setting aside the ex parte decree inter alia contending that there are triable issues between the parties in the said suit. The application was filed under order 37, Rule 4 of the...
Vinodbhai Jayantilal Zaveri Vs. Director of Inspection (investigation) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR394(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is running a proprietary business in articles made of precious metals and precious stones. On February 2, 1985, there was a search by the Central excise authority on the petitioner when the Central excise authority seized 22 carat gold ornaments weighing 967.650 gms. worth Rs. 1,74,177 and alloy gold studded with diamond weighing 152.500 gms. worth Rs. 1,01,440. Both the types of the above ornaments were lying with the Central Excise Department. The Central Excise authority also found cash amounting to Rs. 1,60,000, of which the Director of Inspection, in pursuance of the authorisation under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, took possession from the Central Excise Department. After holding the enquiry, an order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was passed on June 24, 1985, estimating the undisclosed income in the summary manner to the best of its knowledge and calculated the amount of tax on the income so estimated and also dete...
Ranjit Hosiery Mills Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (investi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR867(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This petition is directed against the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by issuing notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). For reopening the assessment of the assessment years 1980-81 to 1985-86, notices were issued on March 28, 1989. In response to the objections raised by the assessee and requiring the Income-tax Officer ('the ITO', for short), to furnish reasons for initiating the proceedings for reassessment, the concerned authority informed that, for the aforesaid assessment years, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has incorrectly claimed depreciation on buildings which has been rented and no business has been carried on by the assessee in the buildings on which the depreciation has been claimed. The reasoning reads as under : 'During the proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87, it was discovered that you have been incorrectly claiming depreciation on buildings wh...
Udaysinh Shankersinh Zala Vs. S.D. Vadera Additional Development Commi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR349
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner who was elected of a Sarpanch of Demai Gram Panchayat in July, 1989 has challenged the orders passed under Sections 49(1) and 49(3) removing him from the office of Sarpanch on the ground of the alleged misconduct.A show cause notice was issued on the petitioner on 9th May, 1991, a copy of which is at Annexure 'J' to the petition under Section 49(1) of the Act on seven charges mentioned therein which were levelled on the footing that though the Panchayat had no power to levy toll it had passed a resolution initially on 29th March, 1990 being resolution No. 14, to levy toll at the rate of Rs. 21- and thereafter had passed another resolution No. 20(1) dated 28th May, 1990 for levying toll with effect from 1-10-1990 on animals carrying burden at the rate of 30 paise per day and thereafter again by resolution No. 4-2 dated 20th September, 1990 the Panchayat resolved to give contract for collection of the toll so imposed pursuant to which Ijara was given...
Gordhandas Purshottamdas Patel and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Guj)239; [1996]217ITR62(Guj)
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the order dated February 23, 1995, passed by the respondent-appropriate authority under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), being illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2. It is the case of petitioners Nos. 1-A to 1-D that they are the owners of a piece of agricultural land admeasuring 6,252 sq. mts. in the city of Baroda. Since, they were desirous of selling the said land to petitioners Nos. 2-A to 2-B they entered into an agreement to sell on December 27, 1993, for an amount of Rs. 1,91,00,000. Since, the price exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, a statement in Form No. 37-I of the Act was filled in by the parties on November 30, 1994. No action was taken by the appropriate authority for more than two months except that of sending some officers for inspection of the property. On February 10, 1995, a show-cause notice was issued under section 269UD(1A) of...
AshwIn D. Mehta (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR411(Guj)
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mihir J. Thakore appears for the respondents and waives service of rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward I(7), Surat, respondent No. 2, on February 8, 1995, by which he withheld refund of Rs. 7,57,660 on the ground that an order passed in favour of the petitioner was challenged by the Department and the appeal was pending. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, he filed returns wherein substantial income earned by him was shown as agricultural income. The second respondent did not accept the said return and held that it was income from undisclosed sources. He, therefore, held that the petitioner was liable to pay income-tax thereon. The petitioner challenged that order by filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax. It i...
Shri Builders and Vs. R.B.L. Aggarwal, Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR361(Guj)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Rule. Mr. M. J. Thakore appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. Both these petitions are filed for quashing and setting aside orders dated October 31, 1994, and January 19, 1995, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad, in so far as they do not waive interest and penalty in their entirety levied on the petitioners by directing the respondents to waive interest and penalty totally. 3. Both the petitioners are partnership firms. For the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the Assessing Officer had levied interest on the petitioners for late filing of income-tax returns as also for non-payment of advance tax. Penalty was also imposed. According to the petitioners, they had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and they were entitled to waiv...
Taraben Ramanbhai Patel and anr., Harshadkumar Natvarlal Dalal and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Guj)187; [1995]215ITR323(Guj)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. All these petitions arise out of a common grievance made by the petitioners by which they were called upon to pay penalty in exercise of the powers under section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioners, the impugned action of the respondents is ultra vires, contrary to law and violative of articles 14, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 2. Since a common point is raised in all the petitions though the petitioners are different, in our opinion, it would be proper if all the petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. 3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, few relevant facts from one of the petitions being Special Civil Application No. 7306 of 1988 may now be stated : 4. The petitioners are the trustees of Harshadkumar Family Trust (the 'trust' for short) settled by one Madhukanta Natvarlal Vora on March 31, 1967, for the benefit of her son, Harshadkumar, and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »