Gujarat Court October 2000 Judgments
Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj112; (2001)2GLR1111
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This appeal arises of the judgment and order dated 5th April, 1980 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural] in Regular Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1979 arising of the judgment and order dated 30th December, 1978 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehgam in Regular Civil Suit No. 199 of 1976. The appellant before this Court is the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is the Gujarat Electricity Board, a statutory Board established under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Board'). In or around the years 1960-61, the Board, under the powers conferred uponit under the Electricity Act, 1910, had laid 60 KVA and 22 KVA lines. The said lines passed above the lands bearing Survey No. 454/1-2-3 and Survey No. 455, situated at Rakhial area of District-Ahmedabad (Rural). The said lands, bearing Survey No. 454/1-2-3 and Survey No. 455, were acquired in or around the year 1962 for the purpose of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee,...
Tag this Judgment!Madhupuri Corpn. Vs. S. S. Khan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: [2000]113TAXMAN568(Guj)
Dave, J.Rule. Service of rule is waived by the learned advocate Shri B.B, Naik for the respondents.The facts leading to the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under.2. Petitioner No. 1 is an HUF, of which petitioner No. 2 is a karta. Petitioner No. 3 is a proprietor of Menka Soap Factory and petitioner No. 4 is a manager of Menka Soap Factory. A search was carried out at the residential/business premises of the petitioners under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and the said search was concluded on 8-12-1999. During the course of the search, certain documents and computer floppies, etc., were seized by the respondents and the said material is still in possession of the respondent-authorities.3. According to the provisions of section 132(8) of the Act, the books of account and other documents seized under the provisions of section 132(1) or section 132(1A) of the Act cannot be retained by the authorised officer for a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Madhupuri Corporation Vs. S.S. Khan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR565(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik for the respondents.1. The facts leading to the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under:2. Petitioner No. 1 is an H.U.F., of which petitioner No. 2 is a Karta. Petitioner No. 3 is a proprietor of M/s. Menka Soap Factory and petitioner No. 4 is a manager of M/s. Menka Soap Factory. A search was carried out at the residential/business premises of the petitioners under the provisions of sec. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the said search was concluded on 8th December 1999. During the course of the search, certain documents and computer floppies etc. were seized by the respondents and the said material is still in possession of the respondent authorities.3. According to the provisions of sec. 132(8) of the Act, the books of account and other documents seized under the provisions of sec. 132(1) or sec. 132(1A) of the Act cannot be retained by the authorised offic...
Tag this Judgment!Vrajlal Ratilal Vs. Shah Baluben Talakshi Since Deceased Through Her H ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR584
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, at the instance of the original tenant-defendant who was sued by the respondent-plaintiff-landlord for a decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.2. Before proceeding with the merits of the matter, it would be pertinent to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with revisions arising under Section 29(2) of the said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal & Ors. v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, 1998 (2) GLH 736 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 3325 : 1999 (1) GLR 15 (SC), while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyad Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, AIR 1987 SC 1782 : 1987 (2) GLR 960 (SC), held that High Court cannot function as a Court of appeal, cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact based on evid...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Narottambhai Ranchhoddas Through Lrs. Patel Shantilal Ranchhodda ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1087
R.M. Doshit, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 5th September, 1991 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN:BA:261 of 1989.3. The petitioner was a tenant of land bearing Survey No. 1035 admeasuring 1 Acre 8 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No. 1036 admeasuring 1 Acre 16 Gunthas situated at Mehsana which belonged to one Charitable Trust - Shree Hanuman Sanstha. Upon enactment of Section 88-E of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), the petitioner, on the specified date (i.e., 15th November, 1969) became deemed purchaser of the said lands and the provisions of Section 32 to 32-R (both inclusive) became applicable. Since then, pursuant to the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act, by order dated 30th November, 1971 made by the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, the petitioner was declared to be the owner and the price of the lands wa...
Tag this Judgment!Madarsing Manaji Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1824
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard Ms, Kusum M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. I. M. Pandya, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present petition, wherein ad interim relief has been granted by this Court on 9th July, 1991 and Rule was issued by this Court on 19th August, 1991 and ad-interim relief has been directed to remain continued. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 29th November, 1990 - Annexure-H to the petition. The brief facts of the present case are as under :- The petitioner had put up a shed (chhapru) on the land admeasuring 15'x15' situated near S. T. Bus Stand and had started a tea stall. The land was a village site (Gamtal) land which had vested in the Gram Panchayat, Vadgam. The petitioner had made application dated 6th January, 1986 - Annexure-A to the District Development Officer, Palanpur requesting that a...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1474; (2001)3GLR2261
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. This Revision Application has been ordered to be placed before the Full Bench in view of the fact that the learned single Judge, who was hearing the application could not agree with the ratio of an earlier decision of a single Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 410 of 1989 (P. D. Aganval v. Stale of Gujamt & Anr.), decided on 11th October, 1990, in which, dealing with a similar case of contravention of Clause 13 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'), the learned single Judge had taken a view that the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because such contravention was punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and fine. Since, in the present case also, the complaint was in respect of the contravention of the provisions of Clause 13 of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Laljibhai Garbaddas Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR698
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. K.T. Dave, Ld. AGP waives service of rule for the respondent. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the non-payment of pension to a freedom fighter from the date of his entitlement till the date of the order sanctioning him the pension i.e. from 16.8.1990 to 1.8.1999. In view of several decisions, particularly, in Mukundlal Bhandari vs Union of India in AIR 1993 SC 2127, there is no doubt that whenever freedom fighter is found to be eligible to get pension, the benefit should be made available to him from the date of his entitlement.3. Mr. N.M. Kapadia, Ld. advocate for the petitioner, however, submits that since the petitioner has not been paid arrears of pension with effect from the date of his application, the respondents should be saddled with penal interest as the respondents can not act in such an arbitrary manner with o...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ185
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This Revision Application has been ordered to be placed before the Full Bench in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge, who was hearing the application could not agree with the ratio of an earlier decision of a Single Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 410 of 1989 (P.D. Agarwal v. State of Gujarat and anr.) decided on 11th October, 1990, in which, dealing with a similar case of contravention of clause 13 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the Order'), the learned Single Judge had taken a view that the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because such contravention was punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (`the Act' for short), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and fine. Since in the present case also the complaint was in respect of the contravention of the provisions of Clause 13 of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Ruchir H. Patel Vs. Gujarat University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)GLR30
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th Sept.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9767 of 2000 as a common order whereby the group of Special Civil Applications was decided.2. Gujarat University provides Post Graduate Course, i.e. Master in Computer Application (MCA). It is a three years' integrated course and the education and training for the said course is imparted through five institutions as under:(i) Gujarat Law Society Institute of Computer Technology (self-financed),(ii) L.D.College of Engineering, Ahmedabad (Govt. College),(iii) Nirma Institute of Technology, Ahmedabad (self-financed),(iv) Rollwala Computer Centre (run by Gujarat University itself), and(v) S.K.Patel Institute of Management and Computer Studies, Gandhinagar (self-financed).All the aforesaid Institutions except Rollwala Computer Centre are affiliated to Gujarat University and Rollwala is a part of the University itself. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »