Gujarat Court July 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.
In Re: Mafatlal Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas705(Guj)
R. Balia, J.1. The company has preferred cross-objections against the finding recorded by the learned single judge [see [1995] 84 Comp Cas 230] that the allotment of shares to NOCIL and Shushrupad Investment Limited out of the rights issue of 1987 was contrary to and in breach of the prohibitory order of injunction issued by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Suits Nos. 3181 and 3182 of 1987, and NOCIL and Shushrupad could not have legitimately participated in respect of those shares at the meeting of the shareholders in pursuance of the directions issued by this court on an application having been made under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act though the court ultimately found that even after excluding participation in respect of such unauthorisedly issued shares, the proposed scheme of amalgamation had got the approval of the requisite majority under Section 391(2).2. Controversy had arisen in the wake of objections raised by the objector-appellant that the company had proposed to i...
Bhargdev Narhariprasad Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1074
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner by filing this Special Civil Application challenged the action of the respondent not to give him promotion to the post of Section Officer. His juniors were promoted under the order dated 26th June, 1981. The copy of that order has not been produced on the record nor any of the junior who has been promoted to the post of Section Officer under the aforesaid order has been impleaded as a party to this Special Civil Application. The petitioner has made a further prayer that the direction be given to the respondent of giving him the promotion from deemed date on which his juniors were promoted with all incidental benefits. The petitioner before approaching to this Court had made a representation to the respondent against his supersession in promotion and the respondent under the letter dated 13th August, 1981 has given the reply to the same. The respondent has come up with a case that the Selection Committee met on 6t...
Rameshbhai Babarbhai Jagirdar and anr. Vs. Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Josh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR514
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The present appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of a specific amount from the defendants, who are admittedly the landlords of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that they are entitled to the recovery of the suit amount in as much as the same was recovered from them by the defendants-landlords by way of premium and/or deposit, which was illegal and/ or not permissible under the Bombay Rent Act.2. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, maily on the ground of limitation. Although the learned Counsel for the appellants made an effort to pursuade me that the finding of the trial Court in this context is not correct, I do not propose to discuss this finding in detail in view of the following considerations.3. It is an admitted fact, and in fact, asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants-landlords had recovered a certain amount from the plaint...
Arvind Polycot Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Guj)112; [1996]222ITR281(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, by filing this petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the notice at annexure 'C' issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and all the further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof including the assessment order if passed. 2. The petitioner, a public limited company, submitted its return for the assessment year 1993-94 on December 20, 1993, along with the statement of total income, statement of business income, etc., a copy of which is at annexure 'A' to the petition. 3. The petitioner made a claim of Rs. 1,27,95,596 in respect of interest stating specifically that this interest has been capitalised in the books and that being in respect of capital borrowed, it is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, in accordance with the decision of this court in CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. : [1976]103ITR715(Guj) . The A...
Narabhai Veljibhai Chaudhary Vs. R.S. Vaghela and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR599
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to quash the order dated 28-10-1995 passed by the Addl. Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat, whereby he set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2 District Development Officer, Mehsana suspending the respondent No. 3 Akbarbhai Rahimbhai Momin from the office of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 59(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged First Information Report at Sidhpur Police Station on 20-2-1995 stating inter-alia that on the said day the respondent No. 3 alongwith about 7 persons arrived on the spot armed with Dharia and other weapons and attacked on him and others. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 Sarpanch inflicted injuries on his person. On this information, the police registered a case against the respondent and others for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 3...
Popatlal Sundarji Chandan and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR563
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether exercise of powers by the Collector invoking aids of Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ('Act' for short) in cancelling the resolution of the Municipality and directing it to restore the original position is legal and valid, is the cry raised in these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Sections 65(2), 80 and 146 is also the legal aspect requiring examination and adjudication.2. In view of the common questions involved in all these petitions against the common respondents, upon a joint request, they are dealt with and disposed of simultaneously.3. A sum and substance of the entire group of petitions may shortly be articulated at the outset with a view to appreciate the merits of the petitions and the challenge made by the petitioners.4. One Easy Co-operative Society Limited which is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 12024 of 1995 and petitione...
ismail Ibrahim Koya and ors. Vs. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2226
B.C. Patel, J.1. In all these petitions petitioners have challenged the proceedings concluded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (thereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx3. It is clear from the contents of the petitions that all the petitioners have handed over possession of the lands after executing agreement and before publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act Since then the Corporation is in possession and there is industrial development.The relevant dates and amounts of compensation are mentioned hereunder:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.C.A. Possession Notification Notification Award dated Amount perNo. ession u/s. 4 of the u/s. 6 of the Hectare (Rs.)handed over Act Act-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5204/86 April 11-6-1981 29-12-1983 28-4-1986 27,180/-19806004/86 Dec. 24-9-1981 13-12-1983 March 33,358/-1980 13-5-1982 19866756/86 April 11-6...
Keshvanand Harinarayan Swami Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3173a
Acts/Rules/Orders: Indian Penal Code - Sections 326, 376 and 376(2)Cases Referred: Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab (1997) 4 SCC 291 : 1977 Cri LJ 1746; Gudikant Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240:(1978 Cri LJ 502); The State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh JT 1996 (1) SC 298 : 1996 Cri LJ 1728S.D. Dave, J.1. The Appellant Keshvanand Swami has been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1994 vide the orders dated March 18,1996, for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(c) IPC and has been sentenced to the R.I. for 10 years, and to a fine of Rs. 35,()00-0(); in default to the S.I. of two years. The appeal presented by the appellant has been admitted. The notice was given to the State on the question regarding the entitlement of the appellant accused to be released on bail at the post conviction stage.2. We are thus concerned with a prayer for bai 1 at the post conviction stag...
Gujarat Poly-avx Electronics Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Guj)141; [1996]222ITR140(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. Assessee, a company, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the intimation/order Annexure 'D' dt. 18th Dec., 1995 under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It has also prayed for quashing the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741. 2. The short facts leading to the present proceedings are as under : On 12th Sept., 1994 the assessee submitted a return of loss of Rs. 1,74,78,530 for the asst. yr. 1993-94 as per the computation of income and depreciation chart annexed to the petition at Annexure A. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,74,78,526. Manufacturing activities started on 24th March, 1993, i.e. during the accounting year ending on 31st March, 1993 (the asst. yr. 1993-94). It was specifically pointed out that 'the amount of interest received during the public issue of Rs. 1,07,85,590 is not to be considered as income an...
Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Guj)150; [1996]222ITR151(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioners, by filing these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, have challenged the validity of the proceedings under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pending assessment proceedings under s. 143(3) of the Act. At the request of learned advocates, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as question raised is common. 2. Brief facts of the case are : The petitioner-assessee in Special Civil Appln. No. 1047 of 1996 is a public limited company, and by filing this petition, has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notice under s. 154 of the Act at Annexure 'C' to the petition, being invalid in law. For the asst. yr. 1993-94, the petitioner-assessee filed a return of loss of Rs. 5,93,17,235, along with computation of total income, a copy of which is annexed to the petition at Annexure 'A'. By order dt. 31st March, 1994, the Ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »