Gujarat Court April 2000 Judgments
Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN144(Guj)
Patel, J.The petitioner - Gujarat Gas Co., is a public limited company having its registered office at Ahmedabad. in the present matter the petitioner has challenged the order of assessment dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Assessment), Special Range-8, Ahmedabad. The assessing officer after relying upon the Circular No. 549, para 5.12 dated 31-10-1989 issued by the Board has held that the petitioner's total income is Rs. 2,11,81,620, however, as the assessee has filed return of Rs. 5,13,86,320 he shall have to pay the tax on the returnable income in view of the instructions contained in the aforesaid circular. The petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing and setting the said assessment order and also prayed for writ of mandamus for refund of Rs. 1,69,80,360 with interest at the rate of 15 per cent p.a. from 1-4-1999 till the date of refund.Facts2. In this case, we are concerned with the assessment year 1996-97. The petitioner has filed return on 30-11-1996...
Tag this Judgment!United Catalysts (India) Ltd. Vs. Prabhat Motibhai Gohil and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR238]; (2001)1GLR378
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. In the present petition, the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Vadodara in Application No. 425 of 1990 dated 30-6-1999 is challenged by the petitioner-United Catalysts (India) Limited [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Company']. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman had preferred an application before the Payment of Wages Authority at Vadodara being Application No. 425 of 1990 for payment of subsistence allowance for 60 months and compensation thereon totalling Rs. 83,700/-. According to the respondent-workman, he was suspended pending departmental inquiry on 24th August, 1985, and thereafter, he requested the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the departmental inquiry, however, no payments were made to the petitioner, and thereafter, on 14th August, 1989, he gave written application to the petitioner under the provisions of the Model ...
Tag this Judgment!Maniben Govindbhai and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1876
ORDER1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. S. R. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Corporation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. The facts of the present petition, in short, are that the petitioner No. 1-Maniben is the widow of deceased-Govindbhai Kanabhai Makwana who was an insured person under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Petitioner No. 2 is the son of deceased-Govindbhai Kanabhai Makwana. The petitioners filed ESI Application No. 7 of 1985 before the Employees' Insurance Court at Ahmedabad and claimed for dependent benefits for herself and also for her then minor son which application was allowed by the ESI Court vide its judgment and order dated 7-1-1992. The petitioners were, thereafter, intimated by the respondent by its letter dated 12/16th March, 1992 that they have accepted the verdict of the ESI Court given in the said ESI Application No. 7 of 1985 and in the same l...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1248
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner-Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited [hereinafter referred to as, 'the petitioner-Bank'] seeks to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court, Surat in T-Application No. 249 of 1992 under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'] dated 11th February, 1998 wherein the Labour Court has granted reinstatement of respondent-workman in service with continuity and full back wages with consequential benefits and costs of Rs. 500. The said Award of the Labour Court dated llth February, 1998 was challenged by the petitioner-Bank before the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Appeal (IC) No. 2 of 1998. While dismissing the said appeal, the Tribunal vide Order dated 31st August, 1999 has confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court dated 11th February, 1998. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the sa...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Sushila Premjibhai Majithi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR636
H.K. Rathod, J.1. `One of the eternal conflicts out of which life is made up is that between the efforts of every man to get the most he can for his services, and that of a society, disguised under the name of Capital, to get his services for the least possible return. Combination on the one side is patent and powerful. Combination on the other is necessary and desirable counter part, if the battle is to be carried on in a fair and equitable way'..Justice Holmes.Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.2. The brief facts of the present writ petition are that the respondents - two workmen namely Sushila Premjibhai Majithiya and Shardaben C. Katariya [Reference Nos. 67/83 & 68/83 respectively] were working with the petitioner-State Trading Corporation of India Limited [hereinafter referred to as, `the Corporation'] with effect from 4th December, 1980 and their services were illegally terminated by the petitioner-Corporation with effect from 25th June, 1982 and 30t...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller S. T. Corporation Vs. Naranbhai Somnath Nayak
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3691
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhiya appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Learned Advocate Mr. Jagdish Brahmbhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman. In the present petition, notice has been issued returnable on 8th March, 2000. Today, Rule has been issued in the present petition and Learned Advocate Mr. Jagdish Brahmbhatt is waiving service of rule and with the consent of both the Learned Advocates the rule has been heard today. In the present petition, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint No. 84 of 1997 in Reference (I.T.) No. 237 of 1992 dated 10th June, 1999 is challenged by the petitioners wherein, the Industrial Tribunal has allowed complaint by setting aside, dismissal order with a direction to reinstate the respondent in service with full back-wages of interim period with all consequential benefits with the cost of 500/-. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent-workman.2. The above facts of the present petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vajabhai D. Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ387Guj
ORDER1. In this matter, initially this Court, on 6th November, 1996, had issued notice making it returnable on 2nd December, 1996 and by way of ad-interim relief, stay in terms of paragraph 7(2) of the petition has been granted on condition that the petitioner-Corporation shall deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Court. Thereafter, the ad-interim relief stood extended from time to time and ultimately, by an order dated 27th February, 1997, rule was issued making it returnable on 25th March, 1997. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-workman is working as a Conductor with the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Corporation'). On 22nd September, 1988, when the respondent-workman was on duty in a bus on Indore-Ahmedabad route, his bus was checked by the Checking Squad of the petitioner-Corporation at Gunawat. The said place of checking is situated at a distance of about 40 kms. from Indore, on its way to A...
Tag this Judgment!Prasidha Kismatkumar Trivedi Vs. Principal, Sarvajanik College of Engi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj244
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. Both these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raise identical questions, and, therefore, upon request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners appeared in the third semester of B.E. II (Electrical) Examination conducted by the respondent No. 2, South Gujarat University, in the subject of Electrical Machine-I and Electrical Technology in December, 1998. Petitioner-student P.K. Trivedi has filed Special Civil Application No. 9533/99, whereas, petitioner-student P.L. Gopani, has filed Special Civil Application No. 9546/99. When the result of the said examination was declared, the result of the petitioners was withheld. Of course, the petitioners started learning in the 4th semester from January, 1999 onwards, which, ended in May, 1999. The petitioners were not, therefore, allowed to appear in the 4th semester examination, which commenced, in June, 1999.3. The respondent University, upon a complaint by the letter d...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC525; 2003(156)ELT186(Guj); (2000)3GLR219
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. Both these petitions are filed by the same petitioner-Company, but in respect of its two different units, one at Navsari and the other at Nadiad. The petitions raise common questions and have been argued together.2.1 In Special Civil Application No. 1409 of 1998, the petitioner has sought a direction on the respondents not to recover any further amount and has challenged the impugned letters dated 15-12-1997 and 12-2-1998 at Annexures 'J' and 'L' to the petition, demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 1,37,27,275.22, which according to the respondents, the petitioner's unit was liable to pay as on 2-9-1997, on the ground that interest was payable by the petitioner at the rate of 20% per annum from 7-8-1995, i.e. three months after the coming into force of the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 26-5-95, on the amount which was liable to be repaid by the petitioner, after losing the appeal which was filed in the Supreme Court, being the am...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Desau and Co. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3612
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The judgment under challenge in this appeal which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is rendered by the learned single Judge on November 24, 1988 in Special Civil Application No. 3943 of 1982 (reported in 1989 (2) GLR 1014) whereby challenge made by the appellant to the order dated November 24, 1982, terminating petroleum products dealership agreement, is negatived.2. The appellant is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. The respondent-Corporation carries on the business of refining and sale of petroleum products. The Corporation is a lessee of a plot of land situated by the side of National Highway No. 8 at Bareja. The Corporation has installed apparatus and equipments such as three electric operated dispensing pumps, storage tank, air compressor, air gauge, battery charger, etc. The respondent-Corporation had appointed the appellant as its dealer at the said premises for retail sale and/or supply of petroleum produc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »