Gujarat Court August 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.
Muljibhai Bhurabhai Vs. Upendra Vyas-manager
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR112]; (2000)3GLR2339; (2001)ILLJ409Guj
K.R. Vyas, J. 1. The applicant-workman has made a grievance in this application that even though the Industrial Court has passed an award dated 13th September, 1999 in Appeal (IC) No. 43 of 1995, in his favour, he is neither reinstated nor paid back wages and, therefore, the Respondents be held guilty of having committed wilful contempt of the Court and to punish the Respondents as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 2. This is one of many such matters whereby the concerned workman, instead of executing the award under Section 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, has filed application under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court entertains such applications in view of different set of decisions in the matter. The questions involved in these applications are : (i) Whether the Labour Court is a 'Court' within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act (ii) Whether the contempt proceedings are maintainable when adequate remedy u/s. 33-C of the Industrial Dis...
Pipushkumar O. Desai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR568(Guj)
A.R. Dave J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions have been referred to this court for its opinion, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,728 as unexplained investment of the assessee in part value of ornaments appearing at Sl. No. 10 of the panchnama ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the contents of the seized papers at pages 63 to 70 of the paper book do not in any manner establish that it represents the papers relating to acquisition of the same items of ornaments which are mentioned at Sl. No. 101 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the general explanatio...
Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR290(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had been found in possession of gold valued at Rs. 48.72 lakhs and as such he was the owner of the said gold and the value of the said gold was liable to be included in the income of the assessee because of the fact that no explanation regarding source from which investment in the said gold had been made, had been given by the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no deduction in respect of the value of the gold which had been confiscated was allowable from the income of the assessee ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. The assessee derived in...
World Tradimpex Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC259
B.C. Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh R. Shah waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner has filed this petition for directing the respondent no.1 to give the benefit of full and final settlement as per Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in respect of the disputed penalty of Rs. 4,45,000/= imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, on 26.7.97. Short facts leading to the present proceedings are as under.3. In view of the Scheme known as Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'KVSS') for full and final settlement of tax arrears, Commissioner of Customs was moved. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in connection with the cargo. Case of the Revenue was that the cargo did not contain only scrap but also contained plastic commodities. On examination of the cargo, it was found that there were three items viz. poly propylene strips, PP Granuals and Recycled PP Scrap. The total weight of the different commodities was 10540 Kgs. whereas th...
Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Guj)111
R. K. Abichandani, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had been found in possession of gold valued at Rs. 4,872 lacs and as such he was owner of said gold and value of said gold was liable to be included in the income of the assessee because of the fact that no explanation regarding source from which investment in said gold had been made, had been given by the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no deduction in respect of value of gold which had been confiscated was allowable from the income of the assessee 2. The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. The assessee derived income from the firm of M/s Fakir Mohmed Haji Hassan & Co....
Pipush Kumar O. Desai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Guj)307
A. R. Dave, J.At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions have been referred to this court for its opinion, by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,728 as unexplained investment of the assessee in part value of ornaments appearing at Sr. No. 10 of the Panchnama 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the contents of the seized papers at pages 63 to 70 of the paper book do not in any manner establish that it represents the papers relating to acquisition of the same items of ornaments which are mentioned at Sr. No. 101 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the general explanation as to the source as exp...
Manubhai B. Desai and ors. Vs. Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1208
B.C. Patel, J.1. Learned Advocates appearing in this matter were given extensive audience as if the matter was being heard finally. By this judgment, we are treating the matter as if it is heard and disposed of finally.2. The petitioners, three in number, without disclosing as to how the public at large would be adversely affected by a decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN/AA/48/96 dated 24th June, 1999 confirming the decision rendered by the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad under Section 36(3) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bearing No. 36/23/94, has filed this petition, styling it as a Public Interest Litigation.3. The Maganbhai Karamchand Station Dharmashala Trust, a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Trust), is in possession of an immovable property which is used partly as Dharmashala, situated opposite Ahmedabad Railway Station bearing Survey No. 666 to 672 of Ra...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sushilaben Manubhai Valand an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC497; 2002ACJ1181; (2001)2GLR1336
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. These two appeals arising out of same accident involving similar questions of law and facts are proposed to be disposed of by common judgment.2. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nadiad in its interim award dated 3rd May, 1997 awarded compensation of Rs. 5,38,068/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment with proportionate cost. This award was rendered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is this award which is under challenge in these two appeals.3. We have heard Shri R. H. Mehta and Shri K. K. Nair, learned Counsel for the appellants. We also heard the above Advocates representing the appellant on the last date of hearing and we were going to dictate the judgment, when Shri B. S. Patel appeared and requested that he wants to show some judgments of the Apex Court to the contrary. Today, we have waited for Shri B. S. Patel right from 11.00 A.M. to till 4.10 P.M. and in the meantime, t...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulsiben Panalal Joshi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1171
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite party No. 3 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has preferred this appeal against the award dated 3.9.85 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Palanpur, awarding a compensation of Rs. 18,000 together with interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation with proportionate costs against the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:On 11.6.1982, the accident occurred at 6.16 a.m. on Deesa-Tharad Road in which two trucks were involved, one was truck No. RRG 5902 which was coming from Badmer and going to Palanpur. The other truck No. GRS 6260 was standing on the road due to puncture in its tyre. One Pana-lal Bhimraj, a businessman, was going in truck No. RRG 5902, insured with the appellant, from Badmer to Palanpur for purchasing bajra at Palanpur. It was stated that the said truck was hired by Panalal Bhimraj a...
Chaudhry Kesarbhai Parthibhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR824
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, a member of the Mahi Gram Panchayat, Mahi, Taluka Vadgam, Dist. Banaskantha by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the orders of the respondent No. 2 dated 20-12-1996 passed in Appeal No. A.2/ADM/Upa-Sarpanch/Election/ Appeal/3/96/Vashi and that of the respondent No. 1 dated 20-1-1998 in revision application No. 305 of 1996 No. CHATAN/1096/3795/G in the matter of election of the Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat aforesaid.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 27-11-1996 the election of the members of the Mahi Gram Panchayat including of Sarpanch was completed and the list was published. For election of Upa-Sarpanch from amongst the members of the Gram Panchayat, the first meeting of the Panchayat as prescribed under Sec, 51 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1993') was fixed on 2-12-1996. The respondent No. 4 was appointed by the respondent No. 3 as Presiding Officer of this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »