Gujarat Court January 1998 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.
Official Liquidator, Patidar Benefit P. Ltd. Vs. Chandrakant D. Thakke ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas76(Guj)
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. This application is filed by the official liquidator in Company Petition No. 7 of 1976. Company Petition No. 7 of 1976 was filed against the company Patidar Benefit Pvt. Ltd. under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the said company. This court by its order dated April 4, 1976, has passed the order under section 433 of the Act and the said company has been wound up and the official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as official liquidator of the winding up company. 2. The official liquidator has filed this application under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, seeking an order-cum-decree against the respondent. It is the claim of the official liquidator that by application dated October 8, 1971, respondent No. 1 had sought a loan of Rs. 6,000 and by another application dated August 19, 1972, has sought further loan of Rs. 16,000 and that those loans were sanctioned and paid to him and he was to return the said loan with interest at...
Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Overruled
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1998
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas683(Guj); [1998]231ITR906(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner-Stock Exchange challenges the order of provisional attachment of its deceased memberis card, his security deposit and margin money, issued on February 14, 1994, under section 281B of the Income-tax, Act, 1961, as extended from time to time, and garnishee notice dated June 14, 1995, issued on the Stock Exchange under section 226(3) of the said Act and further action taken thereunder. 2. The impugned order under section 281B of the said Act dated February 15, 1994, a copy of which is at annexure 'A' to the petition was an order passed against the assessee, Smt. Dipti R. Shah, as a legal heir of Rajesh Anubhai Shah, on the ground that the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94 were pending in the case of the assessee and it was reasonably believed that on completion of the proceedings substantial demand of tax, interest and penalty would arise and since the assessee had not made any provision for the payment of such amounts...
Stock Exchange Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Guj)171
R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. :The petitioner stock exchange challenges the order of provisional attachment of its deceased members card, his security deposit and margin money, issued on 14th February, 1994, under s. 281B of the IT Act, 1961, as extended from time to time, and garnishee notice dt. 14th June, 1995, issued on the Stock Exchange under s. 226(3) of the said Act and further action taken thereunder.2. The impugned order under s. 281B of the said Act dt. 15th February, 1994, a copy of which is at Annexure 'A' to the petition, was an order passed against the assessee, Smt. Dipti R. Shah, as a legal heir of Rajesh Anubhai Shah, on the ground that the assessment proceedings for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94 were pending in the case of the assessee and it was reasonably believed that on completion of the proceedings substantial demand of tax, interest and penalty would arise and since the assessee had not made any provision for the payment of such amounts, it was considered necessary...
P.K. Valera Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)3GLR2077
C.K. Thakker, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has raised a point as to the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : [1997]228ITR725(SC) .2. To appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, few relevant facts may now be stated. The petitioner was sought to be retired on the basis of his date of birth recorded with the respondent authorities as 1st February, 1939. According to the petitioner, his date of birth shown in service record was not correct and there was a mistake in recording it. Since he was an employee of the Central Government, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), he approached Central Administrative Tribunal ('C.A.T.' for short). He filed an Application being Original Application No. 101 of 1994 for getting a declaration that his correct date of birth was September 3, 1942 and for consequential reliefs on that basis. C.A.T., however, d...
Bipinbhai A. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(101)ELT246(Guj); (1998)1GLR589
M.S. Parikh, J.1. The appellant herein has brought under challenge his conviction under Sections 23, 24 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the N.D.P.S. Act'), and his sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months on each of the charges as per the judgment and order dated 22-1-1991 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 155 of 1989. 2. The committal case to the Sessions Court originated from the complaint Exh. 46 filed by Mr. C. R. Desai, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad bearing Criminal Case No. 1582 of 1989 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nadiad. According to the complaint when Mr. R. N. Kakkar, Deputy Director, Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay, received letter from Mr. C. R. Woodward, Drug Liaison Officer, Bombay on 8-2-1989 inf...
Vinodbhai Bikhabhai Harijan Vs. Election Officer and Additional Taluka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)1GLR604
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to set aside order dated December 31,1997 passed by respondent No. 1 by which nomination paper presented by the petitioner for contesting election as a member of Vadsala Gram Panchayat, is rejected on the ground that name of the petitioner does not appear at serial No. 533 in the electoral roll prepared on August 4, 1997.2. The petitioner is a resident of village Vadsala. The State Election Commission issued notification in Official Gazette for holding election of Sarpanch and members to Vadsala Gram Panchayat. On December 12, 1997 a public notice was published by the Returning Officer, i.e., respondent No. 1 of the intended election in Form 3 inviting nominations of candidates for said election. In pursuance of public notice, the petitioner presented nomination paper on December 29, 1997 to co...
Triveni Hydromechs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S.F.C. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Guj92; [1998]94CompCas345(Guj)
M.R.Calla, J. 1. Mr. A. K. Clerk has invited the attention of the court that besides the draft amendment dated June 23, 1997, there is one more draft amendment dated June 16, 1997, seeking to implead the Industries Commissioner for the State of Gujarat as party respondent No. 5. Mr. V. B. Garania, AGP, is already appearing in this matter on behalf of the State of Gujarat, i.e., respondent No. 3 and, therefore, he also appears for the Industries Commissioner, State of Gujarat, impleaded as party respondent No. 5 today. Service on respondent No. 5 is, therefore, waived by Mr. Garania. Mr. A. K. Clerk may file amended cause title so that the cause title may properly show respondent No. 4 as well as respondent No. 5. 2. The pleadings in this case are complete and when the matter came up today for admission before the court while the same is pending since 1994, all the parties submitted that the matter may be finally heard and disposed of right today. Rule. 3. Mr. Dave waives service for re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cadila Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: [1998]230ITR885(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Revenue has prayed for calling for a statement of case in connection with the following question suggested by it in paragraph 4 of the application. 'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts, in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,93,955 for customs duty from closing stock under section 43B ?' 2. Earlier, the applicant had applied under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for referring the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court. The Tribunal by its order dated February 24, 1997, held that since the matter was squarely covered by the decision of this court in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO : [1986]162ITR240(Guj) no question of law arose from its order for seeking the opinion of the High Court, which had already decided the question. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Revenue contended that when there existed a question law in the matter, the High Court, on the authority of the...
Shankerbhai G. Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)1GLR668
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner herein was appointed as Junior Geologist, Class III on 5-11-1976 and in the seniority list of Junior Geologists, Class III, which was issued, as a tentative seniority list as on 30-6-1979, on 5-7-1979, the petitioner's name was shown at Sr. No. 6. The petitioner has raised a grievance in the matter of promotion to the Class II Post. So far as the five persons, above whom the grievance has been raised in Para 6 of the petition is concerned, it is found that all these 5 persons are at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 in the aforesaid seniority list and the petitioner is at Sr. No. 6 and, therefore, all these five persons are senior to the petitioner. All these five persons have been appointed during the period from 21-9-1972 to 12-8-1976 whereas the petitioner has been appointed 5-11-1976. Thus, the petitioner cannot have any legal cause or grievance against the promotion of the five persons senior to him as per this list. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had c...
Popatlal Devidan Gandavi Vs. Satishkumar Rameshchandra Ahir and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1217
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by a third-party after having obtained leave of This Court. Respondent No. 1 was the President of the Municipal Corporation. An order was passed against him under Section 37(1)(b) of the Municipalities Act alleging that he had shown disgraceful conduct. The order was challenged by him before the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge allowed the Special Civil Application and held that merely because there happened to be registration of an offence against the 1st respondent and when that offence was not alleged to have been committed by him in discharge of his duties as Municipal Councillor, it was not open for the State Government to remove him under Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act.2. The judgment of the learned single Judge is under challenge by way of this Letters Patent Appeal before us.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 37(1 )(b) of the Act could be invoked against the President...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »