Gujarat Court February 2000 Judgments
Kalaben Kalabhai Desai Vs. Alabhai Karamshibhai Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj232; I(2001)DMC295
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This revision application under Section 115 of C.P.C. by wife is directed against the order of the learned 5th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Mahesana on her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.P. No. 53 of 1998. Under the impugned order, the learned trial Court awarded the interim maintenance to the wife petitioner at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. and her minor son Rahul at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. towards the litigation expenses, Rs. 200/-has been awarded.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has committed a serious error or illegality in awarding a meagre sum of maintenance to the wife and her minor child. In his submission, the respondent is a practising Advocate. He has a good practice but this meagre amount of maintenance has been awarded. His earnings are about Rs. 10,000/-to 12,000/- p.m. from his practice and further he has regular income from the agricultural land. Alternatively, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Guj)620; [2001]252ITR354(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company has raised a challenge against the order dated July 29, 1992, passed by the respondent, under Section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I.T. Act'), whereby, the revision petition, which pertained to the assessment year 1989-90, came to be dismissed.2. In essence, the factual matrix is not much in controversy. The question which has come up for determination and adjudication in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether, the exercise of statutory, discretionary power by the respondent in not entertaining the revision is justified or not ?3. Firstly, it is contended that the exercise of discretion by the respondent in dismissing the revision is not legal as the action of closing or treating the income return as invalid was not exercised reasonably and justly depriving the petitioner-assessee of his right to have return assessed on the merits. Alternatively...
Tag this Judgment!Payal S. Padhiar Vs. General Manager, Telecom, Palanpur and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj231; (2001)2GLR962
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the respondent of not opening the tender form submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the tender notice dated 6-1-2000. According to the petitioner the tenders were opened by the Tender Opening Committee headed by the Divisional Engineer (Administration) on 7-2-2000 and except the petitioner's tender all the other tenders were opened for placing them before the General Manager, Telecom Office for appropriate decision. According to the petitioner, the Tender OpeningCommittee decided not to open the tender of the petitioner only on the ground that the tender proposal submitted by the petitioner was not sealed with wax. The petitioner had objected to such decision, but it is alleged that the objection was overruled.2. It is strongly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the reason given to the petitioner was that the tender was not sealed, the petitioner had in fact sealed the tender by gum and sta...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Maru and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj183; (2000)3GLR1881
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed by a Cooperative Society of agriculturists, belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes of Gujarat and registered under the Gujarat Co-opera-tive Societies Act, whereby the decision taken by the Gujarat Government, contained in the impugned circular dated 7-8-1986, sent to the Collectors of Various Districts of Gujarat to reserve all surplus lands vesting in the Government under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 for dist. ..... landoustees of Madhya Pradesh and Maharash-tra as a result of submergence of their lands under Narmada Water Reservoir Project, has been challenged. 2. To appreciate the nature of challenge made by the petitioner-Co-operative Society of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, it is necessary to reproduce the contents of the impugned circular, which, upon its translation into English, reads as under : NO. ICH/1078/2239-Chh. Dated 7-8-1986. To, Collector,Bhavnagar, Rajkot, Ahmedaba...
Tag this Judgment!Parvez Rustamji Bharda Vs. Navrojji Sorabji Tamboly (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj160; (2001)2GLR949
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This appeal is instituted by the appellant against summary dismissal of First Appeal No. 7389 of 1998 by the learned single Judge on December 9, 1999.2. The case of the appellant is that there is a trust known as 'Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman Trust', at Navsari registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). According to the appellant, before 1950 Act came into force, there was Parsi Public Trust Act and the trust was registered under that Act. After 1950 Act came into force, it was registered under the present Act. It is also the case of the appellant that Change Report No. 722 of 1984 was filed for addition of two members in the Managing Committee of the trust. The allegation of the appellant is that without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, Rules and the trust deed, the Change Report was granted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on February 25, 1987. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the...
Tag this Judgment!New Ressian Automobiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj283; (2000)2GLR1427
A.R. Dave, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 2923/77 by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, the appellant-plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this First Appeal. 2. The fact in a nutshell are as under : 3. The plaintiff is a partnership firm having telephone connections at different places of its business. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that though the plaintiff could not pay the telephone bills in respect of its telephone connections for Telephone Nos. 23614, 24933 and 24408, the defendant authorities were trying to disconnect other telephone connections in respect of which the entire amount payable in respect of the bills for those telephones had been paid by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, in the suit it was prayed that the defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from disconnecting the telephone connections in respect of Telephone Nos. 20437 and 877138, the connections in respect of which all payments due by t...
Tag this Judgment!Global Tele Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(71)ECC67
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This application is filed under Section 482 of he Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and et aside the criminal prosecution launched against the three applicants in Criminal Case No. 406 of 1990 before he learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. The applicant No. 1 is a company and the applicants Nos.2 & 3 are impleaded as the Chairman and he Managing Director of the applicant No. 1 company.2. The original complaint in Criminal Case No. 406 of 1990 is filed by the Superintendent of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad, and 16 other accused persons besides the applicants are implicated therein. The said complaint is filed expressly under the sanction of the Collector of customs. It may not be necessary to go into details of all the contents and the allegations made against the accused in the said complaint. It is an admitted position that the office of the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad has issued a show cause notice on substantially...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Abhaji Vs. Swami Vaishvacharya Gura
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR239
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 defendant-original tenant, who was sued by the original landlord for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent of more than six months under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act after appreciating the evidence on record and concluding that all the conditions for application of section 12(3)(a) were satisfied. The defendant-tenant thereupon preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by upholding all the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. Hence the present revision.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 the revisions arising under section 29(2) of the said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik H...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Yogendra N. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR157
C.K. Thakkar, J. 1. This petition is filed by the State of Gujarat against respondents for an appropriate, writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dated December 29, 1965 in Revision Application No.656 of 1984. The respondents have purchased land bearing Survey No. 30/2, admeasuring Hector -0, Are 50.59 by registered sale deed for Rs.15,000/- and entry to that effect was made on October 18, 1982. The Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Ganot Case No.2900 of 1982 held that the sale was hit by Sec.63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as the society was not registered and it was merely a proposed society. No sale, therefore, could have been made in favour of such society. The said order came to be confirmed by the Deputy Collector, but the revision application was allowed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, inter alia, observing that though society was n...
Tag this Judgment!Heirs of Jeshanker P. Mehta Vs. Addl. Special Secretary
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR175
R.K. Abichandani, J.1 The grievance of the petitioners is that the revisional authority under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 has, by making the impugned order dated 2.7.1988 relegating the petitioner to appellate remedy, refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.2. According to the petitioners, the dispute pertains to the record of rights in respect of agricultural land on the outskirts of village Bhaili of District Baroda. The Revenue authority had certified entry No. 6087 on 14.5.1980. The respondent No.2 filed an appeal being RTS Appeal No. 46 of 1987 before the Assistant Collector, Baroda, who allowed the appeal on 21st March, 1988. That order was communicated on 26.3.1988. After obtaining a copy of that order on 15.4.1988, a revision application was filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.1, who is the Commissioner empowered to exercise the revisional powers under Rule 108(6) of the Rules. By the impugned communication dated 2.7.1988, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »