Gujarat Court February 1997 Judgments
Dharmishtaben Narendrasinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ97; (1997)2GLR1045
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This special criminal application under Article 226 of the Con- stitution has been registered under Rule 31 of the High Court Amended Rules, 998 on an application dated 19.1.1996 received through post from Dharmishtaben Narendrasinh Rana, resident of Moti Sarsan, Tal. Santrampur, Dist. Panchmahals.In her application, she has stated that on 1.11.1995, at about 1.00 hrs. at midnight, M.H. Joshi, P.S.I., L.C.B., Godhra, Dineshbhai, police constable and other members of his staff came and took her husband with them in police jeep. Her husband was taken to C.I.D. office and later on, to Government Guest House, at Lunavada and then, in the morning, to Godhra. At about 7.15 a.m., her husband had gone for urinal, police constable Dinesh also accompanied him at that time, Dinesh came to P.S.I. Joshi and told him that head constable Rana had shot himself. Healing this, Joshi went to the spot and found Rana lying at the door of urinal. Police constable Dinesh removed the revolve...
Tag this Judgment!C.U. Shah Arogya Bharti (Public Trust) and anr. Vs. Saurashtra Mazdoor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR374
1. The petitioners have assailed the validity and legality of the award, dated March 11, 1991, recorded by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (L.C.B.) No. 9 of 1989 which came to be published on May 3, 1991. 2. Both the petitioners are trusts and charitable institutions. One of the activities of the trust is to run a medical centre known as T.M. Vadodaria Medical Centre at Botad, which has a capacity of 50 beds. Both the trusts are registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Petitioner No. 2 Trust has undertaken the management and administration of the said medical centre and hospital at Botad under an agreement dated January 16, 1992. Pursuant to the said agreement, liabilities prior to the date of agreement will be that of Petitioner No. 1 Trust. The impugned award of the Labour Court is challenged by both the petitioners. By the said award, the Labour Court has directed the Petitioner No. 1 to pay the wages in accordance with 4th Pay Commission Recommendation as also other...
Tag this Judgment!Godiji Parshwanathji JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: [1997]226ITR798(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The assessee, a public charitable trust, filed its return for the assessment year 1976-77 on June 30, 1978, showing a loss of Rs. 1,31,740. The return was due to be filed on June 30, 1976, as per the provisions contained in Section 139(4A) read with Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed by computing the net loss as Rs. 85,402. Since the return was due on June 30, 1976, and filed after two years, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act were initiated for late filing of the return. The Income-tax Officer did not find the cause furnished by the assessee reasonable and levied a penalty in the sum of Rs. 3,830 by its order dated December 9, 1980. While the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the penalty by accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee for delayed filing of the return, the Tribunal, vide its order dated July 23, 1983, did not accept the explanation for the delay furnished by the assessee to be re...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Nathalal Barai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj70
ORDERS.D. Pandit, J.1. Rule.I have heard both the sides on merits at length. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of this petition finally.2. Jagdish Nathalal Barai of Rupen Bunder has filed the present petition to challenge the action of the respondent No. 2 in passing the order dated 2-1-96 to disconnect his telephone No. 4312.3. Present petitioner is having 2 telephone connections, one a Local PCO bearing No. 4312 and another having STD facility bearing No. 4553 and he is using the telephones respectively from 2-5-95 and 8-10-91. It is further the case that on 25-8-95 the petitioner received a notice from the department of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is using conference facilities unauthorisedly for his telephone No. 4554 (4553) and, therefore, a show cause notice was being served on him under Rule 420 of Indian Telegraph Rules (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) as to why the STD, PCO telephone bearing No. 4554 (4553) be not disconnected. The petitioner accordingly rep...
Tag this Judgment!Alka Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: [1995]95CompCas663(Guj)
R. Balia, J. 1. The two petitions raise substantively identical questions and have been heard together at the request of counsel for the parties. Hence, I propose to deal with the same by a common order. First about facts : The facts and preliminary objections relating to Special Civil Application No. 2224 of 1996. 2. This petition has been filed in the circumstances to be stated hereinafter and raises the issue about the authority of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short, 'the SEBI') to order impounding and/or confiscation of the whole or a part of the consideration of a completed transaction, which in ordinary circumstances concerned the party to the transaction is entitled to receive and for whom it is an actionable claim, under the existing provisions of law under which the Securities and Exchange Board of India functions. This issue is similar to the one raised in Special Civil Application No. 5483 of 1996 - D. M. Investments v. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Metal Industries Vs. H.M. Algotar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Guj)200; [1997]225ITR853(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner-assessee has challenged the notices dated March 15, 1996, and April 18, 1996, at annexure 'A' issued under 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, on the ground that they are illegal and without jurisdiction being beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Act. 2. In respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the Income-tax Officer had assessed the petitioner by his order dated March 16, 1990, made under 143(3) of the Act and allowed deduction of Rs. 1,31,800 under 32AB of the Act, stating in the order that it was being allowed as per the audit report in Part III. The impugned notices at annexure 'A' were issued on March 15, 1996, and April 18, 1996, for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, respectively, under 148 of the said Act. No reasons were however communicated in the notice or along with it. Therefore, one of the grievances made by the petitioner was about the reasons on the basis of which the not...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paushak Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Guj)241; [1997]227ITR216(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of assessment was to be treated as merged in the appellate order even with regard to the issues not agitated before the appellate authority ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order dated April 27, 1983, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside ?' 2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1977-78. The Income-tax Officer had allowed certain benefits to the assessee under various provisions of the Act in his order dated April 30, 1979. The assessee preferred an appeal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Suman Vs. Jayantilal Satyadev Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR1931
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 25th March, 1996, whereby the learned Magistrate returned the complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer (F.E.R.A.) to be produced before the Court, at Surat.2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present Criminal Revision are as follows :Accused No. 1 - Jayantilal Satyadev Patel, resident of Surat was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, at Surat at the relevant time. Accused No. 2 M/s. Kakadia Builders Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Surat. Accused No. 3 - Shri Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia is the Director and ln-charge of the accused No. 2 company. He is also a resident of Surat and a builder by profession.Accused No. 1 Jayantilal is the nephew of one Shri Narottambhai Jagabhai Patel wh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaykrishna Harivallabhdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas875(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, has submitted the statement of case and referred the following question of law arising out of its order in ITA No. 1951/Ahd. of 1981 for the assessment year 1977-78 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to claim capital loss of Rs. 27,154 under the provisions of section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The assessee had claimed before the Income-tax Officer a loss of Rs. 27,154 being loss on shares of Indian Bearings Limited and H. K. Sons Private Limited under the head 'Capital gains'. The assessee's case was that the company with respect to whose shares the loss had been claimed had gone into voluntary liquidation and nothing was distributed by those companies to its members, therefore, the assessee received nil consideration for his holdings in t...
Tag this Judgment!Panchmahals District Panchayat Selection Committee Vs. Mambhai S. Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2346
M.S. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the judgment and decree dated December 5, 1983 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Godhra in Regular Civil Suit No. 653 of 1982.The facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:2. The petitioner-Panchmahals District Panchayat Service Selection Committee was constituted under the Gujarat District Panchayat Service Selection Committee (Functions) Rules, 1964, which Rules were framed under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, for the purpose of preparing a Select List for various posts under the District Panchayat which were included in the Schedule to the said Rules. The persons, whose names are included in the Select List for concerned posts, may be given appointment by the District Panchayat.3. In the year 1980, the petitioner had issued an advertisement and invited applications for the posts of Gram Sevaks to be appointed under the Panchmahals District Panchayat. Responden...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »