Gujarat Court April 2000 Judgments
Sizerali Mohamedali Lodhia Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1120
M.R. Calla, J.1. The main Special Civil Application No. 1688 of 2000 was filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and its Divisional Superintendent, S. T. Depot, Surat Division, Surat on 13-3-2000 challenging the order dated 6-1-2000 passed by the Assistant Judge, District Court, Surat in Appeal under Section 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In this Special Civil Application while issuing rule and notice as to interim relief on 22-3-2000 and making the notice returnable on 12-4-2000, ex parte ad interim order was passed staying the operation of the impugned order dated 6-1-2000 passed by the Assistant Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1998, i.e., in fact an appeal under Section 9 of the Act against the order dated 15-12-1998 passed by the competent authority in eviction Case No. 1 of 1977 under Sees. 5 and 7 of the Act.2. On 3-4-2000 i.e., before the returnable date th...
Tag this Judgment!District Development Officer Vs. Maniben Virabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj255; (2000)2GLR1436; (2001)1UPLBEC447
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. In this reference by the learned single Judge to the Full Bench of this Court, the question involved is of correct interpretation of Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is substituted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978.2. In the course of deciding Civil Application No. 1724 of 1995 in the present Special Civil Application No. 642 of 1994, the learned single Judge M.R Calla, J. noticed that interpretation placed on Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the learned single Judge H.L. Gokhale, J. (as he then was) in the decision reported in (Mrs.) S.N. Pandor v. District Judge, District Court, Sabarkantha, (1995) 2 Guj LH 976 requires consideration by a larger Bench of this Court.3. Clause (3) of Article 226 introduced by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, as the text of the said clause shows, obviously was with an intention that ex parte interim orders by way of injunction or stay in proceedings under Article...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Ambuja Motors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3292
D.P. Buch, J. 1. The petitioners above named have preferred this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the Code') challenging the order dated 1st May, 1999, recorded by the learned 2nd Jt.Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), below application Exh.34 in Regular Civil Suit No. 710 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Judge found that the Ahmedabad Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore the application Exh.34 came to be dismissed by the said order of the learned trial Judge.2. The facts may be briefly stated as follows: The respondent herein instituted aforesaid civil suit being civil suit No. 710 of 1998, before the Civil Court at Ahmedabad (Rural), stating that the petitioners above named have committed breach of contract and therefore the respondent filed a suit for a relief for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from terminating the dealership in favour of the respondent for Mahindra and Mahindra Limited in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas448(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 483 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the order dated 16-2-2000 passed by the learned Company Judge whereby he rejected the objection raised by the Corporation to the sale of the land by Public Auction of New Jehangir Vakil Mills (unit of Gujarat State Textile Corporation) through the Official Liquidator in the course of winding up proceedings of the company. Before this appeal came to be filed by the Corporation a Public Interest Litigation being Special Civil Application No. 829/2000 was filed and came up for hearing before the Court objecting to the sale/auction of the land of the company alleging that the authorities of the Municipal Corporation are acting in connivance with the auction purchasers in depriving the corporation of a valuable land. After the Public Interest Litigation (Special Civil Application No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.N. Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR239(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. The Asstt. CIT, [Circle 6(1)], Ahmedabad, the appellant herein, has submitted in this appeal that the following 3 questions of law arise from the order dt. 1st February, 1998 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4914/Ahd/1996. '(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,24,000 in respect of sale of 5 flats (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO to reconsider the issue afresh on the ground that the addition of Rs. 10 lacs being expenditure as recorded on reverse side of p. 9 of Annexure A1, was also a part of computation (3) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that since the Revenue is treating the receipt of on money as income, a portion of the amount has to be considered as expenditure for earning the income and thereby deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5 lacs made for want of supporting evidence for centering expenses and Rs. 3.40 lacs for purchase of raw material ?' 2...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjibhai Harjibhai Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj225
ORDERC.K. Thakkar, J.1. Rule. Mr. M.D. Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 waives the service of rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition has been taken up for final hearing today.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside supplementary as well as revised bills Annexures A and E respectively, and for declaration that the action of the Gujarat Electricity Board-respondent No. 1 herein and its officers is illegal, contrary to law, unwarranted, null and void. A prayer is also made to quash and set aside an order dt. 15th March, 1999 passed by the Appellate Committee in Appeal No. B.240/98/99 and by directing the respondent-Board to refund an amount of Rs. 92,532/- already deposited by the petitioner with the Board along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. A further prayer was made restraining the respondent from disconnecting electricity supply to the petitioner for industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B. N. Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Guj)414
A. R. DAVE, J.:The Assistant Commissioner, (Circle 6(1)1, Ahmedabad, the appellant herein, has submitted in this appeal that the following 3 questions of law arise from the order dated lst Feb., 1998 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4914/Ahd/1996.'M Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,24,000 in respect of sale of 5 flats(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to reconsider the issue afresh on the ground that the addition of Rs. 10 lacs being expenditure as recorded on reverse side of p. 9 of Anexure Al, was also a part of computation(3) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that since the revenue is treating the receipt of on money as income, a portion of the amount has to be considered as expenditure for earning the income and thereby deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5 lacs made for want of supporting evidence for centering expenses and Rs. 3.40 lacs for purchase of...
Tag this Judgment!Mukeshbhai Rasikbhai Shah Vs. Gujarat Technocasting Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR119]
H.K. Rathod J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. B. V. Lakhia appearing on behalf of petitioner. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Gharaniya appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Nagesh Sudh appearing on behalf of Respondent no 1. In the present petition the rule made returnable on 5th October, 1999 by order dated 24th August, 1999. Heard the learned advocates. In the present petition the petitioner is challenging the order passed by Respondent no. 2 dated 13th November, 1998 at Annexure A to the petition wherein, the Respondent no. 2 has come to conclusion that petitioner is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, it is not a fit case for reference. The petitioner had filed individual complaint under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 3rd August, 1998. The said complaint is filed by the petitioner challenging the termination order dated 1st August, 1998. According to the petitioner he was appointed initially as a wireman by order ...
Tag this Judgment!Satishkumar R. Patel Vs. D.D.O., Baroda and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR270
R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. Rule was issued by this Court on 7-4-2000 making returnable on 13-4-2000. Earlier this Court had issued notice on 20-9-1999, which was made returnable on 8-10-1999. The respondents were served with the same. At the time of issuance of rule, direct service was permitted and an affidavit is filed to the effect that the same is served to the respondents. Thus, respondent No. 1 and stand duly served while for respondent No. 3, Mr. S. P. Hasurkar, learned Additional Government Pleader appears and on his behalf, Mr. Digant P. Joshi, learned Asstt. Government Pleader is present before this Court. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 24-5-1999, which is at Annexure 'A', page 9, the petitioner is denied appointment on compassionate grounds. It is stated in the said order that the application of the petitioner cannot be considered by the authorities as the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshbhai Atmaram Patel Vs. Factory Manager, New Sorrock Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR59
ORDER1. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that Special Civil Application No. 942 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner-Workman, and Special Civil Application No. 1424 of 1996 is filed by the Mill-Company. In both these petitions, the order dated 21-10-1994 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad as well as order dated 4-12-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad are under challenge, therefore, both these petitions are heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of both these petitions are as under :- The petitioner-New Shorrock Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Company') is a division of Mafatlal Industries Limited and the respondent-Rameshbhai Atmaram Patel (hereinafter referred to as, 'the workman') was working as Junior Assistant (Sales Section) on a basic pay of more than Rs. 1,000/- besides dearness allowances and other perks. The respondent was issued a chargesheet for various misconducts committed by him for misbehaving with hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »