Gujarat Court December 2000 Judgments
Hasmukh Shah Vs. A.M.C.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2840
B.C. Patel, J.1. In view of the order made on 10th October, 2000, by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the matter has been placed before this Bench.2. The petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of petitioner no.1, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. They have filed this petition inter alia praying that the Town Planning Scheme Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation), Annexure-B, the provisions contained in section-18(j) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 (hereinafter to as the old Town Planning Act), the General Development Control Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Development or Control Regulation), Annexure-D, and section-12(m) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Development Act) be declared as ultra vires to Articles-14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, void and inoperative. The petitioners have further praye...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Guj)282
D. M. Dharmadhikari, C. J.In the case of present assessee the Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Company Ltd., Ahmedabad, for the assessment year 1975-76, at the instance the revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount of gratuity includible for disallowance under section 40(c) of the Act would be the excess of the amount which is exempt under section 10(10) of the Act?'2. A sum of Rs. 10, 500 was payable to one of the managing directors, who retired at the end of the accounting year. The assessing authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) treated the said amount as part of salary and hence not deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession in accordance with section 40(c) of the Act.3. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion on ...
Tag this Judgment!Taljabhai S. Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2505
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. In these four petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the newly added provisions of Sections 61A to 61G as well as the provisions of Sections 52 and 53 to the extent that they were amended by the Forest (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1983 on the ground that they violate fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. In all these matters, vehicles were seized in connection with the illicit carriage of forest produce belonging to the State Government. By the amendment made in the Forest Act, 1927 by the Gujarat State Legislature in Section 52, me earlier provision of Sub-section (2) to the effect that a report of seizure was to be made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the forest offences on account of which the seizure was made, was substituted by providing that such report was to be made to the concerned authorised officer under Section 61A where the offence on account of which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2000
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Guj)537
M.S. Shah, J.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of royalty payment as revenue expenditure 2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that if the unpaid statutory liability is paid before filing of the return under section 139(1) addition cannot be made invoking the provisions of section 43B ?'2. At the hearing of the reference learned counsel agree that question No 1 raised in this reference is already concluded by a decision of this court in CIT v. Ashoka Mills (1996) 218 ITR 526 . We accordingly answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.3. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy raised in this question is concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Motors Vs. Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1719
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. M/s. Jyoti Motors-petitioner has filed this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 25-5-2000 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot, in Civil Application No. 95 of 1999 filed by the petitioner-applicant for condonation of delay in filing the main application in the matter which pertains to set aside arbitral award already passed against the petitioner-applicant. The original application was filed for setting aside the award passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are as under : 2.1 The petitioner entered into a Hire-Purchase Agreement with M/s. Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd., respondent No. 1 for purchasing dumper trucks of Swaraj Mazda. The petitioner stood as guarantor in his capacity as a dealer and mediator. As there was default in payment of instalments,...
Tag this Judgment!Saruyaben Harisingbhai Bilwal Vs. Ataullahkhan Mehtabkhan Lalkhan Path ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ638; (2001)3GLR2029
M.R. Calla, J. 1. This appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th March, 1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. IV), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 368 of 1988 whereby while partly allowing the claim, the Tribunal has directed the opponents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,47,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation within two months and also proportionate costs jointly and severally to the applicants. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation and it is given out that the opponents have not challenged this award.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the accident took place on 2nd January, 1988 when the deceased Harisinh Bilwal was going on Scooter No. GUS-5961 along with the pillion rider and there was a collision between the said scooter and the truck No. GQG-6316 on Kheda Highway in the sim of village Vano...
Tag this Judgment!Koli Gunabhai Kandhabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR172
A.L. Dave, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, on October 19, 1992, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1987. The appellants came to be convicted by the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 326 read with Sections 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. They were directed to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in event of default in payment of fine for the offence of murder. For the offence of causing grievous hurt, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a find of Rs. 500/-. They were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months in event of default in payment of fine. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the orig...
Tag this Judgment!Monitron Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukundlal Khushalchand Dhavan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR498]; (2001)4GLR2997; (2001)ILLJ924Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Joshi waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent.By consent of the parties, the matter is heard today.2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act passed in Application No. 136 of 1996 as well as order of the Appellate Authority under the Act. The said orders are annexed at Annexure 'D' with the present petition. The Respondent herein had preferred an application, being Application No. 136 of 1996, before the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for getting the benefit of gratuity after his retirement from service. Before the Authority, it was the case of the present Petitioner that the concerned employee, after completing 58 years of age on April 1, 1984, was continued as a Director of the Company and he had voluntarily retired on June 30, 1996 and since he was a Director of the Company, he was not entitled to any gratuity as he himself was a part ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Savitaben Vasantlal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2900
J.N. BHATT, J.1. Admit. Upon joint request and considering the facts and urgent circumstances, this appeal is taken up for final hearing today.2. The appellant, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), has challenged the order of Industrial Tribunal, passed in Reference (ITN) No.690 of 1998, dated 19.7.1999, whereby, the tribunal allowed the Reference of the respondent, a Lady Welfare Instructor, directing that the Corporation shall treat the employee as permanent w.e.f. 1.1.1986, and that her salary shall be fixed, adding two annual increments, and that her gratuity shall be paid w.e.f. 1.1.1975, which, upon being questioned before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 426 of 2000, came to be confirmed by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 9.5.2000. Hence, this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. A few material and relevant facts may be needed at the outset. The respondent employee was working as part-time Lady Welfare Instru...
Tag this Judgment!Solanki Rameshbhai Virabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2248; (2002)IVLLJ466Guj
S.K. Keshote, J.1. As in all these three matters, the grounds raised for challenge of the order of termination of services of the petitioners and the facts are almost similar, the same are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In special civil application No.4578/90, this court had not protected the petitioner by grant of interim relief. However, in two other matters, interim relief has been granted in favour of those petitioners and they are continuing in service. Leading arguments in these three matters were advanced by Shri A.V.Trivedi, learned counsel for petitioner in special civil application No.4578/90. Those arguments have been adopted by Ms.Sejal Sutaria appearing for petitioners in two other matters.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were given appointments as class-IV by respondent No.2 at the Civil Hospital, Mehsana.4. Reply to the special civil application No.4111/90 has been filed and therein it is stated that thei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »