Gujarat Court October 1999 Judgments
Moti Ceramic Industries Vs. Jivuben Rupabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1558; (2000)IILLJ735Guj
S.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar is appearing for the petitioner Company. Nobody has appeared for the respondent workman, though served. This Court, while admitting this petition on April 28, 1989 has granted the interim relief subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act' for short). 2. Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice when only the rich enjoy the law as a luxury and the poor who need it most, cannot have it because its expenses put it beyond their reach. Threat to the existence of free democracy is not imaginary but real because democracy's very life depends upon making the machinery of justice so effective that every citizen shall believe in and benefit by its impartiality and fairness. 3. It was the boast of the Augustus that he found Rome of Bricks and left it of marble. But how much nobler will be our boast, when we shall have to say that we found law dear and left it cheap, f...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai F. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj170; (2000)1GLR124
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to delete name of respondent No. 2 from the petition as the presence of respondent No. 2 is not necessary, in order to resolve dispute raised in the petition. Permission as prayed for is granted. Name of the respondent No. 2 stands deleted from the petition.2. Rule. Mr. K.G. Sheth, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. M.P.Prajapati, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case and in view of joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.3. By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is Upa-Sarpanch of Thaltej Gram Panchayat has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside resolution dated...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Vs. Viramgam Nagar Palika and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj91; (2000)1GLR620
ORDER1. The prayers of the petitioner Food Corporation of India in this writ petition are two fold. The first prayer is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondent Viramgam Nagar Palika to pay an amount of Rs. 23,62,500/- together with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum with effect from 4-10-1995 till the amount is actually paid to the petitioner Corporation. The second prayer is for writ of mandamus directing the Collector, Ahmedabad, to recover the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and pay the same to the petitioner Corporation.2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under :--3. The petitioner Corporation paid a sumof Rs. 23,62,500/- as property tax by way of demand draft in favour of the respondent Nagarpalika under mistaken belief that the godown of the petitioner Corporation is situated within the limits of the respondent Nagarpalika. Immediately the petitioner realised its mis...
Tag this Judgment!Malay Babulal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR123
R. Balia, J.1. The petitioner challenges his supersession by hisjuniors in pursuance of the recommendations made by theDepartmental Promotion Committee (for short, 'the DPC')which met on 15.12.1997 for considering the case ofpersons eligible for promotion to the post of ExecutiveEngineer (Civil). The petitioner was appointed as JuniorEngineer, now designated as Assistant Engineer, throughGPSC on 16.1.1979 and was initially posted at CapitalProject Circle, Gandhinagar. After his appointmentpetitioner passed the requisite competitive examinationfor direct recruitment of Class I and Class II officersand in July 1980 petitioner was selected for class IIpost of Dy. Executive Engineer (Civil) and was appointedand posted as such at Godhra in Irrigation Department.The petitioner worked at various places under PanamIrrigation Project during the period from 1.8.82 to25.9.84 after being transferred from Panam Project. FromSeptember 1994 petitioner was transferred to NarmadaWater Resources and Wat...
Tag this Judgment!Rolia Jamal Ratwa Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR412
M.R. Calla, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction of the present appellant under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- and in case of default to pay the fine, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, as was ordered on 20th April 1990 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baroda, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1989. It may also be mentioned that by this very order, the accused no. 2, i.e. Nattarsinh Rolia was acquitted of the charge under Sec. 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. and in the alternative Sec. 114 of I.P.C. Against the acquittal of Nattarsinh, accused no. 2, Criminal Appeal No. 353 was filed by the State which was dismissed on 20th June 1990.2. The incident is said to have taken place on 25th April 1989 at 7.00 p.m. On the following day, i.e. 26th April 1989, one Chandubhai Malubhai Ratwa lodged the complaint with the Police Station, Kawant to the effect that, in the village Chikhli (Raichha), Taluka Chhota Udepur...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Purnaben Prsanshanker Pandya Vs. Shri T.P. and Smt. M.T. Gandhi M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR3028
S.K. Keshotem, J.1. Relying on proviso to subsection 5 of section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a senior teacher in the school in which the appointment was to be made on the post of Headmaster she has first and preferential claim for appointment on the said post.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a teacher in the respondent No. 1 -school since last 16 years. The post of Headmaster of the school fell vacant and the applications were invited for filling of that post by open selection in consultation with the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1. The selection committee interviewed the candidates who were called for the interview for making the selection on the post of Headmaster. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and late Smt. Surbiben U Bhatt were interviewed by the selection committee and Smt. Surbiben U Bhatt was selected and appointed as Headmaster of the r...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Adinath Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: [2001]252ITR476(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J. 1. Tax Appeal No. 169 of 1999 and other companion appeals arise out of two judgments. Tax Appeal No. 166 of 1999 is arising on a consequential order that might be required to be passed. 2. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee, Adinath Industries, was assessed under Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Along with its return filed on July 28, 1984, showing the total income at Rs. 60,814 a statement showing computation of total income was filed along with copies of the profit and loss account, manufacturing account, balance-sheet and partner's capital account. It appears that the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice on January 23, 1987, pointing to the assessee as under : 'On an inquiry with the sales tax authorities as also with the Income-tax Officer, Junagadh (who is having the jurisdiction over Keshod), it is learnt that Geeta Industries which is alleged to be the proprietary concern of one Shri Kishorechandra Ha...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Patidar Ginning and Pressing Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Guj)177
ORDERBY THE COURT:Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, on 20-10-1998, in IT Appln. No. 1470/Ahd/1993, Dy. CIT (Asst.), Spl. Range-2, Surat, has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. According to the Revenue, the Tribunal has committed grave error in rendering the decision. Two questions suggested by the Revenue before the Tribunal, said to be raising important questions of law, are as under :(i) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the bad debt claim of Rs. 42,38,439 of the assessee is admissible on the ground that old business should be deemed to continue despite its closure as per resolution of Board of Directors dt. 31-7-19877?'(ii) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that it is enough if the assessee writes off the debt as bad in its books of accounts and the assessee-company need n...
Tag this Judgment!Bhardwaj B.N. Vs. B.K. Maruthi, General Manager and Discipline Authori ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR896; (2001)IIILLJ1137Guj
R. Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner challenges by way of this petition show-cause notice dated July 15, 1998 issued by respondent No. 1 following his conviction by judicial Court under Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on December 30, 1996. The main plank of the petitioner in his petition as is apparent from the pleadings in the petition as well as the contention of the petitioner noticed at the time of issuing notice in order dated July 29, 1998 is that for the same charges for which petitioner has been convicted, a departmental enquiry was held and major penalty has already been inflicted of reduction in time scale of pay by order dated September 18, 1991. With this premise it was contended that once the petitioner was retired, order of dismissal subsequent thereto on the basis of order of conviction on the very same charges cannot be passed inasmuch as no order of dismissal can be made with retrospective effect and that too for th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abishek Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Guj)374
B. C. PATEL, J.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C, Ahmedabad. In R.A. No. 869/Ahd/1997 the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (CIT for short) has filed this application before this Court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for referring the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in admitting a new plea contrary to the facts on record that the net profit in respect of the supervision charges should be linked to the receipts of booking of flats to the tune of Rs. 2.63 crores contrary to the provisions of r. 29 r/w r. 10 of the Tribunal Rules and to base its finding thereon ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal having held that assessee has received unaccounted receipts was justified in law in holding that the assessing officer has to discharge onus in respect of on money by showing that assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »