Gujarat Court December 2000 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.
Jayantilal Hiralal Mandalia Vs. Charity Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR543]
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of punishment passed by the respondent, Charity Commissioner dated 1.4.85 after holding departmental inquiry on the ground of misconduct and confirmed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, by order dated 30.1.87 in Appeal No.355/85.2. A short resume of relevant and material facts leading to the rise of this petition may be articulated, at the outset, so as to appreciate the merits of the petition and the challenge against it.3. The petitioner was working as an Accountant in the office of Charity Commissioner. Departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the charge that the petitioner falsely, wrongly and without authority had issued a succession certificate to one Rasilaben Kharecha, though such a succession certificate bearing No.446/77 was issued to one Jagdish A. Desai and it was within the knowledge of the petitioner. It was further alleged that an amount o...
Vinodbhai V. Gujarati Vs. G.S. Dothre
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3127
ORDER26. Mrs. Davawala, Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents prays for stay of the operation of this order upto 1.2.2001. Mr R N Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner makes a statement that the petitioner will not file any proceedings for implementation of this order upto 1.2.2001. In that case, no further order is required to be passed....
Karsanbhai L. Harijan Vs. Western Railway
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ175Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. The matter has already been admitted and with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. Heard learned Counsel Ms. Nita Banker for Ms. Parmar and Ms. Talati for the Railway Administration.3. The petitioner herein has raised an industrial dispute, which was registered as Reference (ITC) No. 5 of 1989 before the Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Ahmedabad. The petitioner was the Second Party and the respondent herein was the First Party in the aforesaid dispute. It is the say of the petitioner that the action of the Railway Administration in terminating his services was not justified.4. The petitioner was serving at Bajwa in Wagon and Carriage Department under the Western Railway, Baroda Division. According to the petitioner, the Railway Administration stopped giving him any work from May 19, 1982 and that the enquiry against him was conducted ex parte and according to him, therefore, the aforesaid order of termination was illegal an...
Prashant J. Chavda and ors. Vs. V.R. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj286; (2002)1GLR46
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioners who are hand-cart pullers have challenged the provisions of Sections 3, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act, 1920, on the ground that they are ultra-vires the Constitutional provisions being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners are admittedly drawing wheeled hand-carts for conveyance of goods. According to them, there are about 12,000 hand-carts plied in the city by persons who mostly hail from Rajasthan. Under the provisions of the said Act, they are required to obtain a licence which is to be renewed from year to year. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that no person shall keep or let for hire any public conveyance without a licence granted by the Commissioner of Police. The expression 'public conveyance' is defined in Section 2(b) so as to mean any wheeled vehicle drawn or propelled on roads and used for the purposes of plying ...
Parbat Jetha Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2960
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Prabhat Jetha Ahir and others-petitioners (original plaintiffs) have filed this Civil Revision Application challenging the judgement and order dated 20.11.2000 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 62 of 2000 wherein the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the appellants. The learned Judge has thereby confirmed the judgement and order dated 15.7.2000 passed by Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhuj, below application Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 133 of 2000 wherein the learned Judge was pleased to refuse the injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs below Exh. 5 and reject the said Exh. 5 application.2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:2.1 The petitioners are residents of village Nirona and Palanpur. It has been contended by the petitioners in the suit which has been filed by them that in the year 1958 former Bombay State has constructed Nirona Irrigation Project o...
Varshaben Hiteshbhai Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3585
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Supehia for thepetitioner and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned assistantgovernment pleader for the respondent authorities. 2. Rule. With consent of the learned advocates forboth the sides, this petition is taken up for finalhearing today itself.3. In this petition, the petitioner is the widowserving as a junior clerk in the labour court since 1996.The petitioner was appointed on compassionate groundssince her husband died in harness on 16.4.1995. Thepetitioner, by letter dated 3.12.1996, made a request tothe respondent no.2 to grant her the benefits of theGroup Insurance Scheme since her husband died while inservice which demand was refused by letter dated14.12.1998 wherein it has been stated that since theamount of contribution towards the scheme for the monthin which the husband of the petitioner was not taken, shewould not be entitled to the above scheme inasmuch as hewas not a member of the Scheme. Thereafter, respondentno.2 by letter dated ...
Karsanbhai Lala Harijan Vs. Western Railway
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3470
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The matter has already been admitted and with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. Heard learned counsel Ms. Nita Banker for Ms. Parmar and Ms.Talati for the Railway Administration.3. The petitioner herein has raised an industrial dispute, which was registered as Reference (ITC) No.5 of 1989 before the Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Ahmedabad. The petitioner was the Second Party and the respondent herein was the First Party in the aforesaid dispute. It is the say of the petitioner that the action of the Railway Administration in terminating his services was not justified.4. The petitioner was serving at Bajwa in Wagon and Carriage Department under the Western Railway, Baroda Division. According to the petitioner, the Railway Administration stopped giving him any work from 19.5.1982 and that the enquiry against him was conducted ex parte and according to him, therefore, the aforesaid order of termination was illegal and unju...
Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR876(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by an individual who was a partner in the firm called City Construction ('the firm'), for refund of income-tax paid by the petitioner for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90.2. The firm filed a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS or Scheme) and was granted the benefit under the Scheme and the firm accordingly paid income-tax at the rate of 35 per cent., of the disputed income which worked out to Rs. 73,107. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application dated April 8, 1999 (exhibit B), claiming a refund to the tune of Rs. 11,64,249 on the ground that the petitioner had already earlier paid the tax on the income derived by the petitioner as a partner of thesaid firm in respect of the assessment year 1987-88, for which the declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was filed by the firm. The claim for refund was subsequently revised to Rs. 13,28,207 by the petitioner's letter dated Octobe...
Mehsana District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR520(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are taken up for final disposal today. 2. These appeals arise from the decision dated June 21, 2000, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in ITA Nos. 3483 of 1997 and 410 of 1999 in respect of the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively. The Tribunal has held that interest income of the appellant-bank on the investments made to the extent of reserve funds of the respective assessment years was outside the purview of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the exemption has, therefore, rightly been denied by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal accepted the alternative contention of the assessee for deduction for proportionate amount of expenses in respect 6f interest on the reserve funds. 3. Both the appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law on September 20, 2000 : 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the In...
Navinchandra Dharamshibhai Doshi Vs. Natvarlal and Co. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1100
H.H. Mehta, J.1. The original accused No. 2 of Criminal Case No. 1106 of 1997 which is still pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad (for short 'the learned Magistrate') has by filing this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenged correctness, legality and propriety of judgment Exh. 14 dated 15th September, 1999, rendered by me learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (for short 'the learned Judge of the Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1999.2. Here in this Criminal Revision Application, the Revision-Petitioner is an original accused No. 2 while revision opponents No. 1 and 2 are complainant and accused No. 1 respectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter as 'complainant' and 'accused No. 1 and 2' respectively at appropriate places.3. The facts leading to this Criminal Revision Applicatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »