Gujarat Court September 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.
Karimbhai Kalubhai Belim and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR659
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the District Development Officer at Vadodara (respondent No. 2 herein) on 29th November 1986 as also on 1st December 1986 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat (respondent No. 1 herein) on 19th June 1987 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order of 29th November 1986, respondent No. 2 rejected the application for regularisation of construction and by his order of 1st December 1986, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners not to proceed with any construction activity on the land involved in this petition.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The dispute centres round one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 374/2A admeasuring 1,387 square metres situated at Tarsali in District Vadodara ('the disputed land' for convenience). The petitioners were permitted to retain it in the inquiry under the Urban Land (Ceiling...
Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Hirasingh Jamnadas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR219
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 18.10.1989 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamnagar making a Reference to the Labour Court at Rajkot for decision of an industrial dispute. 2. The respondent No. 1-workman had been appointed as a Foremen with the petitioner-Company on 01.01.1974. At that time the respondent-workman in his bio-data had given his date of birth as 30.11.1920. It is the common case of the parties that in the Standing Orders, which had been certified by the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, no age of superannuation was fixed, but age of superannuation was prescribed, in the Model Standing Orders, to be 60 years. According to the date of birth of 30.11.1920, which was given out by the respondents-workman in his bio-data, the respondent-workman could have been made to retire on attaining the age of 60 years, i.e., in the end of November, 1980, but in fact the responden...
State of Gujarat Vs. Nareshbhai Haribhai Tandel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2783; (1996)2GLR333
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The short, nonetheless the question of quite great importance that arises for our consideration in this acquittal appeal is -- Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in disposing of the Sessions Case acquitting the accused persons merely because one of the seriously injured prosecution witnesses could not be examined before the Court, having gone to America and was not known whether and when he would return back, without there being any sincere and honest efforts put in, in the first instance by the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the Sessions Case, and thereafter by the learned trial Judge, to substantiate the ground of the witness being not available for the purpose of examination ?2. To state few relevant facts as far as they are absolutely necessary to appreciate and resolve the point raised above, in substance, it is the prosecution case that the incident in question, wherein Babubhai Panchabhai came to be seriously injured by Nareshbhai Haribhai Ta...
Cit Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Guj)19
By the court:The following questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal arising out of its order passed in ITA No. 1034/Ahd/1980 relating to the assessment year 1976-77 :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the bungalow used by the employees and visitors of the company which was a place necessary for stay and could not be termed guest house within the meaning of section 37(4) of the Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the expenditure, of Rs. 66,248 incurred by the assessee for its guest house ?2. The questions relate to the allowability of Rs. 62,248 the expenses incurred by the assessee for maintaining residential accommodation. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim without examining whether the expenses were allowable under section 37(1) or not with reference to the provisions of section 37(4) of the Act though in his or...
Keshu Badha and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)3GLR653
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Keshu Badha and 7 others, by this Appeal have brought under challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 30-6-1987, rendered in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1986, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, wherein on their coming to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302,323, 147, 148,149 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code were ultimately convicted for the same and sentenced to the imprisonment for life, and other minor punishments.1.1. It may also incidentally be further stated that pending hearing and final disposal of this appeal, the appellant No. 6 Jivraj Keshu died on 26-12-1989, regarding which the Death Certificate issued by Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation has been produced on the record, and accordingly his appeal stands abated by this time.2. In substance, according to the prosecution, the alleged incident in question wherein Mulji Raja was done to death and other two persons, viz., PW-5 Raja Bhikha and his wife PW-2 Bh...
Kasturbhai Mayabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: [1996]222ITR474(Guj)
1. This reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1976-77. The facts leading to the present reference may be noticed. 2. By a common order passed in respect of all the assessments, the Tribunal has decided the appeals of the assessee by making reference to its earlier decision in ITA Nos. 1353 to 1355(Ahd) and No. 1512 (Ahd) for asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1970-71 in respect of the same assessee. While the controversy has been mentioned in brief in the Tribunal's order as well as in the orders of the AAC, the facts in the background of which the controversy has arisen has not been stated in the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1972-73 to 1977-78. However, the order of the Tribunal relying upon which the order in question has been made has also been made part of the statement of the case from which the following facts emerge. The assessee Kasturbhai Mayabhai is assessed to income-tax. From asst. yrs. 1939-40 upto the asst. yr. 1965-66 he was returning income from all sources in th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Baroda TIn Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Guj)126; [1996]221ITR661(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The following questions of law were referred to this Court for its decision in these proceedings by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad, 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the ITO under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had discharged its burden and there was no positive evidence before the Revenue to establish that the admitted amount represented concealed income of the assessee is correct in law 3. Whether when the assessee had agreed to the addition of Rs. 21,500 for taxation of the same as income in the assessment year in question any further inquiry was necessary as to whether the amount agreed to be added represented concealed income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question 4. Whether, the effect of the provisions of ss. 68, 69 and 69A is only fictional ...
Kantibhai Nathabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR299
B.C. Patel, J.1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 23,6- of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Annexure 'C', a notification published in gazette on October, 9, 1980 under provisions: contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (thereinafter referred to as the Act), being notification No. AM-80-937-7-LKI-1477-106-2377-KH, notifying some lands as specified in the Schedule, needed for public purpose.2. This Court, while issuing notice in this petition on 3-7-198 1, by an ad-interim, relief, restrained, the+ respondents from making the award for taking possession of the property in question, subsequently, on 13-7-198:1, the Court issued Rule and confirmed the an-interim relief granted on 3-7-1981.3. Petitioner No. 1 is holding agricultural lands admeasuring 13 Acres 13 Gunthas. Petitioner No. 2 is holding agricultural land admeasuring 6 Acres 36 Gunthas~ Petitioner No. 3 is holding agricultural land admea...
Alessandro Constantini Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: [1997]226ITR883(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Two separate statements of cases have been submitted and the questions of law referred to this Court for decision by the Tribunal being from the very same order passed in Appeal No. 834/Ahd/80 for the asst. yr. 1976-77, we propose to decide these reference applications together by this common order. 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that Mr. Alessandro Constantini, the assessee, is a non-resident assessee. M/s Air Control & Chemical Engineering Company (hereinafter referred to as the Indian company) was assessed as employer of the assessee on the strength of a general power of attorney held by it. The assessee was working with Air Control & Chemical Engineering Company between 27th Nov., 1975 and 16th June, 1976. The Air Control & Chemical Engineering Company had a collaboration agreement with M/s Italviscosa Eastern Trading of Milan. (hereinafter called as the collaborator company) The assessee was an employee of the collaborator company and was sent to Indi...
Baroda Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj162
1. Baroda Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' for short) which is the original unsuccessful plaintiff has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree recorded by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara on 26-7-1983 in Special Civil Suit No. 444 of 1976, by invoking aids of provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A few material facts giving rise to this appeal may shortly be narrated so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal and challenge against it.2. The Corporation initiated a legal battle by filing the aforesaid suit against the respondent-original defendant-State of Gujarat challenging the order of respondent No. 2-Collector of Baroda passed against the Corporation on 16-9-1963, directing the Corporation to pay an amount of Rupees 2,37,778.02 within 15 days towards non-agricultural assessment, education cess and local cess. The Corporation inter alia contended that the said order of respondent No. 2 original defendant No....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »