Gujarat Court December 1997 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.
idar Municipal Borough Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR722
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Admitted With the consent of all the parties the matter was taken up for final hearing.2. We have heard at considerable length Mr. K.G. Vakharia, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Tushar Mehta for the Appellants, Mr. M.R. Raval Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 13, Mrs. K.A. Mehta for respondent Nos. 5 to 12 and Mr. A.H. Mehta for Respondent No. 3. Mr. R.A. Mishra for respondent No. 2 was absent.3. This appeal is filed against judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6078 of 1993, on February 21, 1997. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed by Idar Municipal Borough; formerly Idar Nagar Panchayat [Appellant herein].4. Few relevant facts to appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal may now be stated:The Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat issued a notification in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1...
Umeshkumar Manubhai AmIn Vs. Dholka Nagarpalika
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1020
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondent to allow him to resume duty as Naka Clerk with full back wages from the date on which his services were orally terminated.2. The petitioner has come up with the case that he was working as an Octroi Clerk on consolidated salary of Rs. 450/-. It has further been stated by petitioner that he was paid Rs. 14.50 ps. per day and calculated as monthly Rs. 450/-. Some other persons were also employed as workcharge employees. The petitioner and others were given breaks in service only as per the seniority. The petitioner's brother. Shri Ravindrakumar Manubhai Amin was also in service of the respondent whose service came to be terminated orally. He filed Special Civil Application No. 739 of 1985 before This Court and This Court has directed the respondent to permit him to prosecute his duties from 1st March 1985. Accordingly, the petitioner's brother resumed duties from 1st March 1985. The petitioner being the brother...
Pravinbhai A. Lingalia Vs. K.J. Mehta Tb Hospital and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1028
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, an ex-Chief Accountant of the K.J. Mehta TB Hospital, Amargadh, District Bhavnagar, challenges by this Special Civil Application the order dated 21st January, 1985 of the respondents under which his services were terminated.2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Clerk in the service of the respondents in the year 1963. In June, 1963, he was promoted as Office Clerk and thereafter as Senior Clerk from 1964. On 16-7-1974 he was promoted as Chief Accountant. On 11-4-1983 his services were terminated by the respondents and he challenged that order before the Civil Court at Bhavnagar by filing a Civil Suit No. 308 of 1983. Interim injunction has also been granted in favour of the petitioner. Then the respondents put appearance in the civil Court and gave out that they will withdraw the order dated 11-4-1983 subject to reserving rights to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for misconduct. On this statement, the suit was withdrawn...
Panjwani Packaging Ltd. Vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1358
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Mr. Sandeep Bhatt, learned Advocate, put appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. He filed note and prayer has been made therein for withdrawal of his appearance for respondent No. 2. Notice of this note filed by Mr. Sandeep Bhatt was sent to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has sent letter dated 23rd September, 1997 in which he stated that he does not want to engage another Counsel as the Gujarat State Financial Corporation is defending them also. This letter of respondent No. 2 is taken on record of this Special Civil Application.2. As usual this is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a loanee who has taken liability of earlier loanee who had defaulted in repayment of the dues of Gujarat State Financial Corporation. The Corporation proceeded under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. Land and building of the unit in question were put to public auction, and respondent No. 2 purchased the same. At that stage this petition has...
Sanatkumar Jayantilal Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: [1998]229ITR766(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 'Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the exemption under s. 5(1)(xii) of the GT Act of gifts given to daughters of the Karta of the assessee-HUF for the purposes of education ?' The assessee, which is an HUF, filed return of gifts under s. 13(1) of the Act, on 12th July, 1974, showing value of taxable gifts as 'nil'. The assessee had made gifts of Rs. 1 lac each on 7th October, 1971 to Jankiben Sanatkumar and Vaishali Sanatkumar, who were the minor daughters of the Karta, Shri Sanatkumar Jayantilal. These gifts were claimed to be exempt under s. 5(1)(xii) of the said Act, on the ground that they were made for the education of the children. The age of the two minor daughters in whose...
State of Gujarat Vs. Khant Kanji Rana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1383
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this group of 12 appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, we are called upon to the consider and adjudicate upon as to whether the impugned common judgment and resultant awards for compensation to the original claimants for the acquisition of their lands in treating and taking as non-agricultural properties though in reality and admittedly, the lands of the original claimants are agricultural, and some of them are jirayat, and some of them are bagayat, and including some kharaba portions, by its common judgment, dated 30-3-1988, at the additional rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard setting aside the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 26-10-1981.2. A conspectus of the material facts giving rise to the present group of appeals is required to be narrated at this juncture hereunder:3. The appellants in First Appeal Nos. 1547 to 1552 of 1988 and the respondents in First Appeal Nos. 1537 to 1542 of 1988 are the original claimants, whose agricultural la...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rampurshottam Agrawal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR128(Guj)
BY THE COURT:1. The applicant wants this Court to answer two questions suggested in Para 3 of the application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. These questions are as under : '1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order had merged with the appellate order and, therefore, the CIT could not invoke the jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act, when the AO had not at all considered the amount of Rs. 1,75,000 and the said point was also not agitated by the assessee before the appellate authority 2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 whereby he has directed the AO to redo the assessment ?' 2. The relevant facts are that in search and seizure operations under s. 182 of the Act at the assessee's residence and business premises cash amount of Rs. 2,08,606 was detected, out of which Rs. 2 lakhs were seized. At the time of search, the assessee had stated that out of that amount ...
ismail Ibrahim Pandoor Through P.A.H. Bai Mariam Suleman Pandoor Vs. O ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: (1999)3GLR2688
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners for a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, direction or Order quashing and setting aside the Order Annexure 'L' dated August 8, 1988 passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition No. III, Ahmedabad, respondent No. 1 herein, and by directing him to make a reference in the cases of the petitioners to a competent Court of law under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of award Annexure 'I' dated March 27, 1986.2. It was the case of the petitioners that they were occupants of land situated at Village Bhadkodra, Taluka Ankleshwar, District Bharuch. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, respondent No. 3 herein, ('Corporation' for short) intended to acquire land in question for public purpose, i.e., for Narmada Project for construction of Sectional Colony, Store and Quarters of Channel Division 2/2 Bharuch and for said purpose, a notification was issued und...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Reva Investment (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Guj)423; [1999]239ITR224(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal for its opinion under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (the Act) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the difference of Rs. 8,21,950 on the sale of the jewellery by the assessee to its 12 wholly owned subsidiary companies was not liable to gift-tax under the provisions of the GT Act, 1958 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited investment company. During the asst. yr. 1976-77, the assessee sold certain jewellery to its 12 wholly owned subsidiary companies in consideration of fully paid up shares of Rs. 100 each of these companies. The assessee did not file any gift-tax return for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and, therefore, a notice under s. 16(1) of the Act dt. 22nd March, 1979, was served on the assessee on 23rd March, 1979 pursuant to which the assessee filed a return of gift on 9th April, 1979 declaring a gift on...
Kalidas N. Mehta and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1351
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition (III), Ahmedabad, by which an application of the petitioner to make reference came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. Few relevant facts which are necessary may now be stated. It is the case of the petitioner that he is resident of village Metoda, Lodhika Taluka, District Rajkot. Some land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A notification under Section 4 was published on November 10, 1988 whereas notification under Section 6 was published on August 31, 1989. The petitioner submitted his claim. According to him, he was entitled to get atleast Rs. 120/- per sq. mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award which was not acceptable to the petitioner. He, therefore, made an application to refer the matter to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »