Gujarat Court March 1996 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.
Gangadhar Alias Tatya Shed Bhawanrao Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Guj)491; [1996]220ITR579(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J. 1. Petitioner, one of the co-owners of the property situated at Pune City, being interested person in the property, has challenged in this petition the decision rendered on 24th Feb., 1995 by the Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, exercising the powers under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for pre-emptive purchase of the property under s. 269UD(1) of the Act. 2. It appears from the contentions raised in the petition that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are co-owners while respondent No. 3 is a developer who entered into a development agreement only with the respondent No. 2 on 16th Nov., 1994, vide Annexure 'A'. The said agreement was submitted before the Appropriate Authority along with Form No. 37-I of the Act. The Appropriate Authority opted to purchase the property and sought possession thereof. The respondent No. 2 was claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property in question which was owned by the late Bhavanarao Pa...
Gopal Gangaram Nepali Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR823
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner-detenu, being branded as a bootlegger as defined in Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short), has challenged the order of detention dated 7-8-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of PASA Act with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as his activities are likely to or deem to affect adversely the public health. On the order being served, petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention with necessary documents relied on by the authority to record subjective satisfaction.2. To brand the petitioner as a bootlegger, the authority has relied on as many as six cases registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, of which three are pending in Court and three are pending investigation. He was also supplied with necessary documents referred in the grounds, which according to the authority, were reli...
Jagdishbhai Jivanlal Bhimani Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR577
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the U.L.C. Act' for short) for exemption of agricultural land under the provisions of the U.L.C. Act bypassing and without consideration of the guidelines contained in the letter dated 19-12-1977 issued by the Government of India to the State Government is valid, legal and justified or not, is the central theme of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. A few relevant facts may be stated first. Agricultural land bearing survey No. 117 (old No. 89) of village Anandpar (Navagam) admeasuring 11 acres - 3 gunthas used for agricultural purposes was purchased by the father of the petitioner on 25-5-1981 by a registered sale deed. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for exemption for the said land for agricultural purpose under Section 20(1) of the U.L.C. Act on 20-7-1989 contending that the said land ha...
Vijaysingh D. Parmar Vs. Competent Authority and Additional Collector ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR522
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether rejection of an application under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('U.L.C. Act' for short) on the sole ground that the party has not produced evidence to show as to when the application under Section 20 of the U.L.C. Act was made, is legal and valid, is the central theme of the present petition.2. The petitioner is the owner and occupier of the lands bearing survey numbers 483,403 and 475 situated in the sim of Gotri of district Vadodara. These agricultural lands totally admeasured about 4,094 sq.mts. which are hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed lands'. The petitioner had obtained exemption under Section 20 of the U.L.C. Act to carry out agricultural operations in the disputed lands. The authority had granted exemption to utilise the agricultural lands for agricultural purpose by an order dated 31-5-1979 under Section 20 of the U.L.C. Act. The said permission for exemption came to be cancelled by the respondent authority...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nirmala Bakubhai Foundation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Guj)373; [1997]226ITR394(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. 2. So far as IT Ref. No. 161 of 1984 is concerned, the following two questions are referred for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the contribution of Rs. 2,12,970 made to B. M. Institute 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest received by the assessee on fixed deposits made with Shahibag Entrepreneurs was covered under s. 13(2)(a) of the Act, and, therefore, the assessee's claim for exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961 was not affected.' 3. So far as IT Ref. No. 56 of 1985 is concerned, the following questions are referred to this Court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under ...
M.M. Khambhatwala Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC12
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying to issue appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to pay Rs. 7,32,411.81 (Rupees seven lakhs thirty two thousand four hundred eleven and paise eighty one only) with interest at 15% per annum from the date of petitioner's application till the date of actual payment. 2. Facts succinctly stated leading to the filing of this petition are as under :- The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of hair oils, perfumes, agarbatties (incense sticks) etc. Government of India announced a scheme for the year 1978-79 known as 'Cash Compensatory Support' (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) on the export of certain products manufactured by Indian manufacturers.Two of the products manufactured by the petitioner, viz., hair oil and incense sticks, were eligible for the benefit of the said scheme. Hair oil being not specifically excluded under the ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: (1998)1GLR260
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. In this matter, office has raised the objection that there is a delay of 18 days in filing an acquittal appeal by the State. We have carefully perused the delay condonation application and the grounds mentioned therein causing the said delay. From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question.2. That takes us to yet one another important question, viz., whether before condoning the delay, it is always necessary to issue notice to the other side? Now, in this regard in view of the decision rendered in the case of Stale of Gujarat v. Ramesh Laxman Chauhan reported in 1994(2) GLR 1577 and thereafter yel another decision of this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn. JJ.) rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 637 of 1996 in Criminal Appeal So. 605 of 1995. decided on 23-2-1996, which stands duly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Naik Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff, repo...
Laxmanrao Narayanrao Gharmalkar and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Guj)518; [1996]220ITR537(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed on 31st Oct., 1995 by the Appropriate Authority exercising the powers vested in it under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) and petitioners No. 2A to 2D (hereinafter referred to as the confirming parties) entered into an agreement on 4th July, 1995 with petitioner No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the developer) for development of the plot in question, for a consideration of Rs. 74 lakhs. Form No. 37-I with details in respect of the property in question was filed. On 22nd Sept., 1995, members of the Appropriate Authority inspected the property under consideration (hereinafter referred to as the PUC). The property is located at about 250 mtrs. away from Dnyaneshwar Paduka Chowk (Pune). 22nd March, 1996 3. The PUC is an open plot of land abutting 25 ft. wide Dattatrai Dhondiba Path connecting DP Road and Chole Road. These two roads merge into Ferg...
Dabhoi Nagarpalika and anr. Vs. S.J. Khedia and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR696
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel. The respondent No. 1 was in service of Dabhoi Nagarpalika. While he was working as Chief Officer of Dabhoi Nagarpalika he retired from the service on 30.9.1985 on attaining the age of superannuation. He served with the Municipality for about 26 years 6 months and 29 days. After the retirement as aforesaid the extension was granted to him and thereafter when he finally retired with the extension period being over he was paid retirement benefits like gratuity, pension etc. An amount of Rs. 37,167/- was paid to him as gratuity by 30-4-1986 in two instalments. It is the say of the respondent No. 1 that keeping in the spirit with the award applicable to the employees of the Municipality including the Chief Officer retrial benefits including gratuity were being paid to all retired employees and as far as back in 1965, the question of payment of gratuity had been decided by the arbitration. In these arbitration proceedings the Municipality itself had e...
State of Gujarat Vs. Sairabanu W/O Iqbalbhai Shafimohmad Memon
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2474
R.R. Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21-9-1994 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1793 of 1994, enlarging the respondent on bail in a case registered against her vide C.R. No. 6 of 1994 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act' for short), the State of Gujarat has preferred this application under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it would be apposite to state briefly facts of the case.2. Respondent, Sairabanu, wife of Iqbalbhai Shafimohmad, is sharing common roof and bed of her husband at house No. A/8, Jantanagar Society, Ramol Road, Ahmedabad. On a secret information that said Iqbalbhai is dealing in contraband drugs, raid was carried. On search of person of Iqbalbhai Shafimohmad, some contraband goods (43 packets) like brown sugar were found from the pocket of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »