Gujarat Court June 1997 Judgments
Jayamal Jayantilal Thakore Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Guj)384
R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. :In these two writ petitions which were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, the petitioners have sought a direction on the IT authorities to enquire into and investigate the sources of income in the light of huge expenses alleged to have been incurred by respondent No. 4 when several BJP MLAs were taken to Khajuraho in October, 1995, and during the marriage reception of the son of the respondent No. 4 Mr. Shankarsinh Lakshmansinh Waghela and in holding 'Mahasammelan' at Ahmedabad on 22nd August, 1996. A direction is also sought in Special CA No. 9390 of 1996 that the CBI should be directed to investigate into the incident and file a complaint against Mr. Shankarsinh Lakshmansinh Waghela, the Chief Minister of the State and Shri C. K. Raolji.2. Notice was issued on 15th October, 1996, in Special CA No. 7417 of 1996 and on 7th November, 1996 in Special CA No. 9390 of 1996.3. According to the petitioners of Special Civil Appln. No. 7417 ...
Tag this Judgment!Belleview Association and ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj83
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. All these special civil applications proceed on common facts and grounds and challenge is made to the one order of the Taluka Development Officer, Daskroi, therefore, these are disposed of by this common order.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri G. N. Shah raised several contentions, but I do not consider it necessary to advert to all those contentions as in my opinion these writ petitions deserve to be accepted only on the ground that the order impugned in these special civil applications have been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.3. Learned counsel Mr. S. R. Divetia very fairly conceded that the order impugned in these special civil applications has been made without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.4. Under the order, reference to which has been made in the impugned order dated 5-6-1982, no-agricultural permission for residential purposes was granted in respect of Block Nos. 372, 379, 380, 381, ...
Tag this Judgment!Centre for Social Justice Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR656
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A Centre for Social Justice, petitioner herein, has knocked the doors of Court for legal justice questioning the order of respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation authority rejecting a representation exercising powers under Section 132(1)(b) and thereby refusing the exemption from the liability of payment of property tax by invoking the aids of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Precisely the controversy placed in focus in the petition is whether the petitioner could claim the benefit of the provisions of exemption from payment of property tax invoking the help of provisions of Section 132(1)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ('B.P.M.C. Act').2. In order to examine and appreciate the aforesaid short but substantial controversy requiring and involving the interpretation and the application of provisions of Section 132 of the B.P.M.C. Act, need narration of skeleton projection of facts relevant and material for the sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›