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.
Natvarlal Motilal Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2508
H.K. Rathod, J.1. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of transfer dated 30th October, 2000 transferring him from the present position to Rajpipla. At the time of admission hearing on 3rd November, 2000, this Court had issued notice to the respondents and thereby granted status quo to be maintained till 8th November, 2000. The order of status quo has subsequently been extended from time to time till the date of hearing the present writ petition.2. In the present petition, the respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit-in-reply. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have also filed reply against the main Special Civil Application. Against both the documents, the petitioner has filed detailed rejoinder countering the averments made therein. Civil Application No. 10349 of 2000 has been filed by the respondent No. 4 for vacating the ex pane interim relief granted by this Court on 3rd November, 2000. Against the said Civil Application, the petitioner has a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panna Knitting Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR656(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. These two reference cases are being decided by this common order as the same were decided by the Tribunal by a common order.2. The following common question of law in the two reference cases has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. In the assessment case of the year 1979-80 of the two assessee-companies herein, weighted deduction under Section 35B was allowed in relation to three items, but it was disallowed on the item 'export freight'. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal under Section 251 of the Act before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) however, confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer disallowing the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under section 35B ...
Navinchandra Dharmashibhai Doshi Vs. Natvarlal and Co. Through Its Pro ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3105
H.H. Mehta, J.1. The original accused No.2 of Criminal Case No.1106/97 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 Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenged correctness, legality and propriety of judgment Exh.14 dated 15th September, 1999, rendered by the 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.148/99.2. 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 Application in a nutshell are as...
Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel Thr'h Poa Kamleshbhai Parekh Vs. State of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3319
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The orders and action of the authorities, under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, are under challenge in this writ petition.2. The petitioner's land, having an area of 12,385 Sq.Meters was declared excess under sec. 8(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 on 3-1-1985. On 22-8-1985, the petitioner offered a scheme on the said excess land under sec. 21 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. Annexure-'B' is the aforesaid scheme. This scheme was rejected on 15-12-1986 on the sole ground that notification under sec. 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short, the Act) was published in the Official Gazette on 25-7-1985 vide Annexure-'C'. However, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved against this order of rejection of proposed scheme under sec. 21 of the Act, preferred an appeal, wherein the order of rejection of scheme under sec. 21 was set aside on 15-12-86 and the case was remanded to the competent authorit...
Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise (Rural Div.) Ahmedabad-ii Vs. Priya ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC14
M.S. Shah, J.1. This application has been preferred by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise (Rural Division), Ahmedabad-II praying for a direction to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Branch at Mumbai to refer the following substantial question of law involved in the present case for the decision of this Court : 'Whether MODVAT credit is allowable on the gate passes which were endorsed more than twice when there is Board's order file No. 267/40/90-CX-8 Circular No. 22/90 dated 9.4.90 which put embargo to avail MODVAT credit of GPIs endorsed more than twice and also clarified in the Board's order that the decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. SBS Organics Private Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs 1990 (45) ELT 701 would be applicable for individual case and not as a sole (i.e. it will be applicable to another case for availing MODVAT credit).'2.The facts leading to the present application briefly stated are as under : Prior t...
Tata Ssl Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT338(Guj)
ORDERB.C. Patel, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1, under in threat of attachment of goods by the department, moved a stay application with appeal against the order. The petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 41,38,515.00 under protest pending the appeal. The amount of this pre-deposit was not being given credit, despite the fact that the appellate authority on 25-2-1999 held that Rules could not be given retrospective effect. As there was substantial compliance, appellate authority held that the benefit could not be denied to the petitioner and set aside the order in original. Despite repeated reminders, the department was not accepting the request for granting credit. Hence Special Civil Application No. 3791 of 2000 was preferred in this High Court. Division Bench considered the statement made by learned counsel for the Revenue and directed that the amount shall be refunded in accordance with law within four weeks from the receipt of the order. The Revenue was contemplating appeal at the relevant t...
Acce Vs. Priyakant Carbon and Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(96)LC17(Gujarat)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This application has been preferred by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise (Rural Division), Ahmedabad-II praying for a direction to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Branch at Mumbai to refer the following substantial question of law involved in the present case for the decision of this Court:Whether MODVAT credit is allowable on the gate passes which were endorsed more than twice when there is Board's order file No. 267/40/90-CX-8 Circular No. 22/90 dated 9.4.1990 which put embargo to avail Modvat credit of GPIs endorsed more than twice and also clarified in the Board's order that the decision of the Tribunal in case of MA. SBS Organics Private Limited v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs would be applicable for individual case and not as a sole (i.e. it will be applicable to another case for availing Modvat credit).2. The facts leading to the present application briefly stated are as under:2.1. Prior to 1.4.1994, for av...
H.R. Joshi Vs. Chandubhai D. Bosamiya and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3434; (2002)1GLR231
H.H. Mehta, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') filed by original complainant of Criminal Case No. 402 of 1989 which is still pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jetpur, District Rajkot, (for short 'the learned Magistrate'), challenging legality, correctness and propriety of order dated 16-1-1990 passed by the learned Magistrate below Application Exh. 4 presented by the complainant seeking an order under Section 33 of the Waler (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (same will be referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) for restraining the accused for that case alleging that accused is likely to cause pollution within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. By that order which is challenged in this application, the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the said application Exh. 4 presented by the complainant in the aforesaid case.2. Here, in this Criminal Revision'...
State of Gujarat Vs. Joshi Formulabs Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2726; (2001)ILLJ915Guj
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed by the State against the order of acquittal dated 13.01.1992 passed by the JFMC, Rajkot acquitting the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 18 of the Minimum Wades Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with rules 26(A), 26(2) & 25(2) of Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules 1961 (for short 'Rules'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the complainant visited the factory premises of accused no. 1 which is a Private Limited Company on 16.10.1987 he found that the following offences were committed by accused no. 1, the Limited Company and accused no. 2 its Director. [i] Accused did not maintain Visit Book and thus violated Rule 26(A) of the Rules. [ii] Accused did not give pay slips to the workers and thus violated Rule 26(2) of the Rules. [iii] Accused did not maintain overtime register in the prescribed form and thus violated rule 25(2) of the Rules. 3. According to the prosecution, the case of the accused ...
Bhikhabhai Haribhai Patel (Decd.) Through His Heirs and ors. Vs. Parsh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj246; (2001)2GLR1483
H.R. Shelat, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1st March, 1982 passed by the then learned Extra Assistant Judge, Nadiad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1980 reversing the decree dated 25th February, 1980 passed by the then learned Civil Judge (J. D.), Borsad, dismissing Civil Suit No. 132 of 1967 by allowing the appeal and passing the decree for specific performance of contract dated 12th June, 1950, original-defendants have preferred this appeal.2. Uttambhai Patel and Dadabhai Patel were the brothers. Lallubhai was the son of Uttambhai, and Punambhai was the son of Lallubhai. Dadabhai was having three sons namely (1) Shivabhai, who died unmarried, (2) Bhaijibhai and (3) Haribhai. Bhaijibhai had a son named Zaverbhai and Purshottambhai was the son of Zaverbhai who was the original-plaintiff. Bhikhabhai, Mangalbhai and Dahyabhai were the son of Haribhai who are original-defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Natubhai the original-defendant No. 4 is the son of Bhikhabhai Haribha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »