Gujarat Court December 1999 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.
Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry and anr. Vs. Pravinbhai Jashb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)1GLR244; (2000)2GLR245
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. By this application, the applicants Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Textile Processors' Association, pray for recalling the order dated 5th August, 1995 passed in Special Civil Application No. 770 of 1995 and after reviewing it, to direct the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to fulfil its statutory obligaton by permitting the industrial units to discharge the trade effluent into the main trunk line after meeting with the public sewer norms. A further direction is sought on the GIDC to lay down the internal drainage line within the estate areas within a stipulated time. A relief is also sought that the order dated 5th August, 1995 be modified by extending the time and permitting the industries to set up the CETP within the said estates and pending installation of the CETP, to permit them to discharge their effluent into the Kharicut canal, after meeting the necessary parameters as stated in the application.2. It appears that during the pendency of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrugesh Jaykrishna
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR638(Guj)
ORDERBY THE COURT :1. The CIT has preferred this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad, on 12th January, 1999 in Ref. Appln. No. 664/Ahd. of 1998. 2. The questions sought to be referred by the Revenue are as under : '(1) Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 3,82,895 on account of unexplained investment in jewellery in view of the express provisions of s. 69A of the IT Act (2) Whether the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record so as to arrive at the above conclusion ?' 3. The assessee, in the instant case, was found with a list of jewellery at the Mumbai Airport on 19th March, 1985, and the assessee's immediate explanation about the list was that the list consists of items they were planning to get prepared for the next 5-7 years by the time his son is ready for marriage, who at the relevant time was ...
Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2479; (2000)2GLR796
A.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioner was detained under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('PBM Act' for short), by virtue of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 26th July, 1999, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the said Act.2. In the grounds of detention, various allegations have been made against the petitioner involving him in malpractices relating to forging of permits, signatures and securing supply of wheat and rice on basis of such forged documents.3. The detention order was approved by the State Government on August 6, 1999. A representation was made on September 11, 1999 to the Central Government, which was considered and rejected by the Central Government on September 27, 1999.4. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the detention on various grounds. But the main ground is that there is an uncalled for delay in deciding the repre...
Parwatiben Wd/O Ramsinh Rajput Vs. Parulben Wd/O Rajendrasing Rajput
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR790
J.R. Vora, J.1. Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. B.M. Gupta for Respondents No. 1 to 3 and learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval for respondent No.4 State waive service of rule on behalf of the respective parties.2. In this Revision, this court is called upon to examine the scope and jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the propriety of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, under Section 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for attachment of the property.3. As per the brief facts of the case, present petitioner No.1 Parvatiben is the widow of Ramsinh Rajput and petitioner No.2 - Lilaben is the daughter of Ramsinh Rajput. Opponent No.1 Parulben, is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1 i.e. widow of Rajendrasingh Rajput, a deceased son of petitioner No.1. There is a property, i.e. a shop No.9 in Nirav Shopping Centre on the ground floor, which is situated at Final Plot No.106, T.P. Scheme No.7, near Old Railway Crossing,...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: [1999]258ITR785(Guj)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(1), Ahmedabad, under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the decision rendered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. For the assessment year 1988-89, Harsidh Specific Family Trust was assessed by the Assessing Officer and the said assessment was challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal partly. The matter was thereafter carried in appeal by the Revenue. However, on hearing the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Hence, the Revenue has preferred this appeal before this court.3. Five questions are raised before us, which are as under :'(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the deduction under Section 80L to the assessee-trust treating the st...
Deco Mica Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC554; 2002(144)ELT18(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule, service of which is waived by learned Additional Central Government Counsel Mr. M. R. Shah for the respondents. 2. This group of 9 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raise identical questions and, therefore, upon joint request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. A conspectus of relevant and material facts leading to the rise of this group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may, shortly, be articulated, at the outset. Out of 9 petitions, two petitions have been filed at the stage of show cause notice. The petitioners, inter alia, contended that the action of the respondent authority in rejecting their declarations for availing the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 (KVSS) in Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 has resulted into miscarriage of justice as they have been derived of availing the statutory benefit flowing from KVSS since their cases were answering the material requiremen...
Vinubhai Rambhai Dalwadi Vs. Mangabhai Sartanbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1334
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. at the instance of the petitioner, who is the original-opponent No. 2 in a Motor Accident Claim Petition being the owner of the vehicle insured by opponent No. 3-Insuranee Company.2. At the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner-opponent Nos. 1 and 2 stand deleted.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.4. On the facts of the case, it appears that in respect of a claim petition presented by the present opponent No. 1, initially the Insurance Company, the owner and the driver were all represented by the same Advocate. However, at a later stage the Insurance Company informed the Tribunal that it would not represent the owner and driver. For this reason, the owner and the driver engaged a separate Advocate and consequently filed a separate written statement.5. During the stage of the trial the Insurance Company gave an application to the Tribunal at ...
Lilaben Vs. Rajendrabhai R. Gurjar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj121; (2000)2GLR1346
ORDERD.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application for review of the order passed by me in Civil Revision Application No. 321 of 1998.2. Shri J.T. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri H.R. Prajapati who was representing the applicant in the aforesaid Civil Revision Application were heard.The order sought to be reviewed reads as under:-'Shri H.R. Prajapati, ld. Counsel for the revisionist states that the parties havesettled the matter outside the Court and in view of the settlement he may be permitted to withdraw this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Interim relief stands vacated.'3. The above order was passed on 14.10.1998. It is this order which is sought to be reviewed through this application.4. The first point for consideration is whether the review application is maintainable on the farts of the case or not. The application is styled as application for review. The grounds of review are contained in Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Under this pro...
State Bank of India Vs. Engg. Majdoor Sangh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1032
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In all these applications the applicants have prayed for review of this Court's order dated 23-9-1997 passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. D. Dave) in Company Petition No. 224 of 1996 sanctioning the scheme presented by Engineering Majdoor Sangh, Baroda, under Secs. 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since these applications involve common question of law and fact, they are heard together and common judgment is being delivered in all these four applications. 2. It may be clarified at the outset that in Company Application Nos. 513 of 1997, 515 of 1997 and 516 of 1997 the applicants have prayed for the following main reliefs. (i) This Court may review, quash and set aside the order dated 23-9-1997 sanctioning the Scheme of Compromise and/or arrangement proposed by the Engineering Majdoor Sangh. (ii) This Court may direct appropriate action to be initiated against Shri K. W. Desai of Engineering Majdoor Sangh fo...
Likhi Group Gram Panchayat and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj123; (2000)1GLR827
Majmudar, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 2965 of 1992.2. The facts leading to the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal are as under :Original Special Civil Application was filedby Likhi Group Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch as well as by one Shri Prithuvisinh Gulabsinh as power of attorney holder of (i) Shri Jagatsinh Gulabsinh, (ii) Shri Rajslnh Nathusinh and (iii) Shri Daulatsinh Pravatsinh. It was the case of the original petitioners in SCA No. 2965 of 1992 that petitioner No. 1 and other members of the Gram Panchayat were duly elected under the provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and were entitled. They continue to hold the post on which they were elected for a period of 5 years from the date of their election under the provision of Section 17 of the said Act.So far as the petitioner No. 2 is conc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »