Gujarat Court March 2000 Judgments
Star Pistons Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(70)ECC387; (2000)3GLR2184
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.1.1999 at Annexure-C to the petition of the respondent No. 2 rejecting the declaration in Form-18 dated 20.11.1998 filed by the petitioners under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 on the ground that there was no dispute in the case pending and no appeal was filed by the petitioners against the final order of the CEGAT. 2. According to the petitioners, it satisfied all the conditions of getting the benefit under the said Scheme contained in Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. 3. Two show cause notices were issued to the petitioners on 8.1.1988 and 4.5.1988 by which recovery proceedings as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were commenced. It appears that the petitioners had given a reply to the show cause notices on 23.6.1988 denying that they were manufacturing Pistons of Internal Combustion Engines classifiable as goods covered by Sub-Heading 8409.00 as the parts suitable ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhupuri Corporation Vs. Prabhat Jha, Deputy Director of Income-tax ( ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)593; [2002]256ITR498(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners, three in number, have challenged the authorisation issued by the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No. 2") on 15 concerns by common authorisation under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the summons dated January 13, 2000, issued under Section 131(1A) by the respondent No. 1, Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) at Bhavnagar, as also the notices dated December 10, 1999, on petitioner No. 3 and notice dated January 18, 2000, on petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 issued by respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Bhavnagar, under Section 158BC of the Act. The petitioners have also prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the aforesaid notices and summons. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanlaxmiben Jitendraprasad Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR260
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is Applicant's Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.1979 of Employees' Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, refusing to declare dependency benefits to the applicants- appellants on account of alleged death, of Jitendraprasad Chhotalal, which was alleged to have occurred in the course of his employment.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Jitendraprasad Chhotalal, an insured person, was working as employee in Ahmedabad - Sarangpur Mills Co.Ltd. as Kanta Karkoon. His duty hours were from 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. with recess from 11.30 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. On 19.4.1976 the deceased attended his duty in the aforesaid Mill at 7.00 a.m. and worked till 11.30 a.m. On account of mental and physical strain he informed his colleague Gotambhai Thakorlal Patel that he would be going to his home in the recess and take some rest and get rid of tireness and return to his job. At about 11.30 a.m. on that date he boarded bus of Route No. 2 to reach his house and a...
Tag this Judgment!Gurukrupa Transport Corporation Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR338
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order of the 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot dated 28th July 1995, in Execution Application No.9 of 1993 below ex.1, whereunder the court ordered that the defendant should pay interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 18% simple interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,031=75 ps. from 7.12.1990 till its realization with costs as decreed.2. The facts of the case which are necessary for deciding this revision application are to be briefly stated. On the basis of its claim arising from contract of transportation of food grains and fertilizers from various parts in Gujarat to depots and storage places of the respondent-Corporation, the plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit on 3.5.79 for recovery of Rs.16,59,940=96 as per its bills which remained unpaid from 25th July 1976 including the claim of interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs.4,55,940/=. This suit came to be registered as Special Civil Suit No.7...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsinhbhai Kantibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3598; (2001)1GLR179
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside an order passed by District Magistrate, Bhavnagar -respondent no.2 herein on December 31, 1987 (Annexure: C to the petition) and confirmed by the State Government on 5th December, 1988 (Annexure : E to the petition) by directing the authorities to renew the licence of the petitioner bearing No. 189 of 1977.2. The case of the petitioner was that he was President of Bhavnagar Diamond Merchants' Association and was a man of repute. He was holding Arms Licence bearing No. 189 of 1977 since 1977 for his personal use. In that capacity, he owned and possessed a weapon viz. 32 bore revolver. The licence was renewed from time to time till January 12, 1988.3. It was the case of the petitioner that when he was travelling in S.T. Bus near Anand, his bag was stolen, wherein the above weapon was kept by him. Immediately, he lodged a complaint which was registered as Com...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai Somnath Joshi Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR184
R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. Rule. Mr. K. M. Parikh, learned Advocate waives service of the rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed on 21-8-1998, by the respondent-Corporation, whereby the services of the petitioner were brought to an end on the ground that the petitioner has become permanently unfit for the post of Driver and his name stood removed from the establishment of Mehsana Division of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has prayed that the said order of termination dated 21-8-1998 be quashed and set aside and that he may be absorbed by the respondent-Corporation on the post of Peon with protection of pay as that of Driver with continuity of service with full back wages for the intervening period.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined services of the respondent-Corporation as Driver on 18-4-1989. The petitioner while working as Driver was req...
Tag this Judgment!Kalaji Hathiji Thakore Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj289; (2001)1GLR734
M.R. Calla, J. 1. This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 8-5-1998 passed by the District Development Officer, Banaskantha, Palanpur whereby the petitioner was removed from the office of the Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gangva, Taluka Danta, District Banaskantha at Palanpur and the order dated 25-1-1999 passed by the Addl. Development Commissioner in Appeal. 2. This Special Civil Application was filed in the Court on 4-3-1999 against the aforesaid orders. The petitioner's case is that he was a member of the said Panchayat prior to 1990 but he was not a member of the said Panchayat and did not hold any office in the said village Panchayat Gangva from 1990 to 1995. The petitioner has stated that he is a supporter of Congress (I) party and in order to see that the supporters of the party loses its control over the Panchayat, a show-cause notice was issued at the instance of the members of the opposition party by the District Development Officer purporting to ...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Gujarat Power Corp. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: [2002]254ITR217(Guj)
1. This tax appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue setting out the following question of law :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the addition of Rs. 1,90,299 being pre-operative interest is not permissible within the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts pertaining to the case are as under :3. The respondent-assessee had filed a return of income for the assessment year 1991-92 showing 'nil' income as the company had commissioned its business during the relevant assessment year. Along with the return, a note was filed to the effect that during the said assessment year the respondent-assessee had received a sum of Rs. 5.50 crores from the Government of Gujarat and from the Gujarat Electricity Board as an advance towards the share capital and as the said amount was not required by the respondent-company immediately, the respondent-company had deposited the same with a scheduled bank in short...
Tag this Judgment!Merubhai Mandanbhai Odedara and anr. Vs. Raniben Merubhai Odedara
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj277; I(2001)DMC164; (2000)3GLR2456
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. The respondent filed Misc. Civil Application 66 of 1999 under Section 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh. The relationship of parties are as under : The respondent is the mother of the petitioner No. 2 and wife of petitioner No. 1. 2. The respondent has also filed Criminal Misc. Application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Porbandar being Misc. Criminal Application No. 84 of 1992. The petitioner filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) under Section 14 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. In the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr. P.C., the maintenance has been awarded initially at the rate of Rs. 400/-p.m. but later on, on application for enhancement thereof it was enhanced to Rs. 500/-p.m. In the proceedings under Section 18 and 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the respondent prays for grant of Interim ...
Tag this Judgment!Kiritbhai Hiralal Patel and ors. Vs. Arvind Intex Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas232(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the validity of an order dated December 6, 1999, passed by the learned single judge of this court whereby three companies, namely, Arvind Intex Ltd. ('AIL' for short), Arvind Cotspin Ltd. ('ACL' for short) and Arvind Polycot Ltd. ('APL' for short) had been ordered to be amalgamated into the transferee-company, namely, Arvind Products Ltd. ('APRL' for short). By virtue of the impugned order, the scheme of amalgamation of the above-named three companies into APRL had been sanctioned.2. The appellants herein were holding 19,100 shares of AIL which ultimately merged into APRL. 19,100 shares of the said company had a face value of Rs. 1,19,000 and the appellants had objected to the said scheme at the time when the meeting of the shareholders of AIL had been convened for the purpose of considering the scheme and they had also objected to the scheme when the said scheme was placed before the learned single judge of this cour...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »