Gujarat Court February 1997 Judgments
Bijal Revashanker Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1147
ORDERAfter the pronouncement of the judgment, learned Counsels for the parties submit that a copy of this order may be sent to the C.B.I, as well. It is thus, ordered that a copy of this order be faxed to Director General of C.B.I., New Delhi and Joint Director, C.B.I., Bombay forthwith. A copy of the order be also sent to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Ahmedabad per messenger....
Tag this Judgment!Nizar SadaruddIn Khoja Vs. Vaibhav Construction and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1521
R.R. Jain, J.1. Mr. Bhavsar, learned Advocate, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.2. Since all these Civil Revision Applications are arising from a common order, passed below Exhs 28,29 and 54 in Regular Civil Suit No. 72 of 1994, are disposed of by this common judgment. Order below Ex. 28 is challenged in Civil Revision Application No. 1234 of 1996, below Ex. 54 in Civil Revision Application No. 1235 of 1996 and below Ex. 29 in Civil Revision Application No. 1236 of 1996.3. The petitioner/original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 72 of 1994 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Visnagar for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- paid to respondents as part-consideration towards purchase of a flat as per agreement and also claimed alternative relief for specific performance of the agreement for sale of flat valued at Rs. 80,000/-.4. The respondents/defendants, on service of summons, appeared before the Court and raised objections about the maintainability of suit in ligh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Navjivan Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: [1997]227ITR322(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In respect of the asst. yr. 1974-75, at the instance of the CIT, the following two questions of law have been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', said to be arising out of its order in Income-tax Appeal No. 1939/Ahd/80. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing an admissible sum of Rs. 4,46,457 being the bonus liability for the asst. yr. 1970-71 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 10,000 in maintaining of a temple in the premises of the assessee as staff welfare expenses ?' 2. The first question relates to allowance of Rs. 4,46,458, the amount of bonus actually paid to its workmen by the assessee. The bonus was paid in respect of calendar years 1970, 1971 and 1972. The ITO disallowed the claim on account of expenditure incurred for payment of bonus, because the assessee was required...
Tag this Judgment!Karimaben K. Bagad Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1595
ORDER35. Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the interim relief granted by this Court earlier may further be continued for a period of four weeks. As the controversy involved has been concluded by the Special Bench constituting nine Judges of the Supreme Court and as such there is no scope for granting further relief. The prayer is accordingly rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Park Co-op. Housing Society Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1499
S.D. Pandit, J.1. S.C.A. No. 1568 of 1987 and S.C.A. No. 5149 of 1989 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the acquisition proceedings taken by the State Gujarat for the purpose of acquiring land for L & T Ltd., a public company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Said company is respondent No. 4 and 3 respectively in these two petitions. But S.C.A. No. 5171 of 1991 is filed by M/s. L & T to challenge the order of withdrawing from the acquisition passed by the State of Gujarat under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the lands covered by S.C.A. No. 1568 of 1987 and S.C.A. No. 5149 of 1989, and two other lands. Thus, all these 3 petitions are inter-connected and the final fate of each petition is also dependent on the final fate of the controversy between the parties. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate, proper and just to decide and dispose of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. Anand Sarabhai. (Also Cit V. Execut ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Guj)391
R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. :The following questions had been referred to this Court for its opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in the above two references :IT Ref. No. 216 of 1977 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the distributions received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts were assessable only in the hands of the trustees of the respective trusts under s. 164 of the IT Act, 1961, and not in the hands of the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,990 received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts is exempt from tax inasmuch as the said sum was paid out of dividends received by the trusts which were exempt under s. 80K of the IT Act, 1961 ?'IT Ref. No. 268 of 1977 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the distribution...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. 1. Dr. Anand Sarabhai (itr No. 216 of 1 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: [1998]231ITR529(Guj)
R. K. ABICHANDANI J. - The following questions had been referred to this court for its opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the above two references :Income-tax Reference No. 216 of 1977 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the distributions received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts were assessable only in the hands of the trustees of the respective trusts under section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not in the hands of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,990 received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts is exempt from tax inasmuch as the said sum was paid out of dividends received by the trusts which were exempt under section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'Income-tax Reference No. 268 of 1977 :'1. Whether, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mitesh Manubhai Sheth Vs. Secretary, Government of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj60; [1998]91CompCas910(Guj); (1997)2GLR1134
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and is carrying on his business as stockbroker in Ahmedabad and is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEBI') authorising the petitioner to carry on business in the name of Mitesh Manubhai Sheth. The petitioner was served with a notice of inspection by the SEBI on February 7, 1994. The inspection was undertaken from February 14, 1994, to February 16, 1994. The substance of the deficiencies observed during the inspection were communicated to the petitioner under memo dated May 30, 1994. The petitioner responded to the same by letter dated September 14, 1994. On September 29, 1994, the SEBI issued a notice to the petitioner under regulation 28(2) for enquiry to be undertaken by one Shri R. V. Nabar, enquiry officer. The letter was also accompanied by a memorandum containing the adverse findings of the inspection team. The petitioner was called upon to reply...
Tag this Judgment!Karimabibi Wd/O Gulam Mohammad Mustufa Karodiawad and ors. Vs. Anklesh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj42; (1997)2GLR1174
ORDERS.D. Pandit, J.Rule.1. I have heard both the sides at length on merits. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of this petition finally by issuing rule today.2. The present petition is filed by one Karimabibi, widow of Gulam Mohamed Mustufa and 6 others who are sons and daughters of Karimabibi Mohamed Mustufa, to challenge the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 159 of 1996, on 25th October, 3 996 and the entries made in the birth register maintained by the respondent No. 1 on the strength of the said order of the learned Magistrate.3. The present petitioners are widow and children of late Gulam Mohamed Mustufa. The respondent No. 2 is husband of respondent No. 3 Jubedabibi. The said respondent No. 3 Jubedabibi, it seems is claiming to be the daughter of late Gulam Mohamed Mustufa. The respondent No. 2 as a power of attorney holder of respondent No. 3 Jubedabibi filed an application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 159...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Veterinary Livestock Inspector's Association and Ors. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj58; (1997)3GLR747
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, Gujarat Veterinary Livestock Inspectors' Association, and three others filed this Special Civil Application before this Court in which following prayers have been made :(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted directing the second respondent to appoint a Registrar under Section 13 of the Act and directing the said Registrar to prepare a Register under Section 14 Sub-scetion (1) of the Act including the names of the petitioners and other similarly situated Livestock Inspectors and to register them as Registered Veterinary Practitioners. (B) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted directing the State Government to lake appropriate actions under Section 35 of the Act to amend the Schedule of the Act and to include the names of the petitioners and other similarly situated pers...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »