Gujarat Court September 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharatkumar R. Panchal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR454(Guj)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. The following question of law has been referred for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned amount of Rs. 22,400 received by the assessee on retirement as a result of revaluation of the assets is not taxable under Section 28(iv) or Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as under : The assessee along with his father, Babubhai alias Ranchhodbhai Pan-chal, and two brothers were partners in a firm named Panchal Engineering Works. There were other four partners who were real brothers of the assessee. A dispute arose between the partners and on July 23, 1977, the other four partners separated from the said firm to start a new firm in the name and style of New Panchal Works. At the time of separation of the abovementioned partners from Panchal Engineering Works, the plant and machinery as a...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zerabibi Wd/O Saidmohmad Arab
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3003
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The only question which has been raised, vehemently, by and on behalf of the appellant New India Assurance Company Limited, original opponent No. 5, in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the new Act'), challenging the legality and validity of the judgement and award recorded in MACP No. 161 of 1991 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahals at Godhra, on 30.12.1999, is that the appellant being insurer in respect of a truck involved in the accident is not liable for payment of compensation to the original claimants since the deceased was travelling in the truck of the insured No. GTW-8811, unauthorisedly. This submission, prima facie, may appear to be subtle but not sound.2. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 147 of the new Act, as they stood prior to the date of amendment which came into force on 14.11.1994 by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994 whereb...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutbhai Bholibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR787
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner against whom C.R. No. I-38 of 2000 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short hereinafter) as well as Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act ('the Act' for short hereinafter) with Sarkhej Police Station has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated March 22, 2000 appointing Mr. K.J. Shethna, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting C.R. No. I-38 of 2000 at the District and Sessions Court of Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad and High Court for bail and trial.2. It may be stated that by the said Government resolution, Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar and Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, advocates are also appointed to assist Mr. K.J. Shethna and, therefore, their appointments as such are also challenged.3. Earlier it was stipulated in the said resolution that Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal C. Valia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR262(Guj)
1. This reference arises at the instance of the assessee under the provisions of s. 256(1) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for our opinion. The following 2 questions are required to be answered : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee could be taxed on capital gains in relation to the sale of silverwares during the accounting period in question with special reference to the definition of capital asset 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the statement made by the assessee in the voluntary disclosure could not help him merely because it was his own statement and further that it cannot be said that the same is not binding upon the Department ?' 2. The short facts necessary to be taken note of are that the assessee holds 790 silver items of dinner sets. The question arises is whether the assessee can be subjected to ta...
Tag this Judgment!Ravatsinh Ranubha Vs. V.S. Sinha or His Successor and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1679
H. R. Shelat, J.1. After the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Bhavnagar on 31-12-1970 passed the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1969 declaringthe shares of the parties in the undivided properties and directing the Collector under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to partition the lands assessed to payment of revenue to Government, and put the parties in possession of the portions of the land falling to their respective shares, the Collector for the District of Bhavnagar on 16th May, 1986 as per the settlement arrived at amongst the parties divided the lands and directed the Mamlatdar to hand over the possession of the land. The order was challenged in Revision. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal) at Ahmedabad on 23-5-1990 allowing the Revision set aside the order of the Collector (Respondent No. 2) dated 16th May, 1986 and directed the Collector to act as if he was the Commissioner appointed within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code and comple...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Malojirao Bhonsle Vs. Rasikbhai Govardhanbhai Raiyani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ866; (2001)GLR25
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The revisionist - party in person has filed this revision challenging the order dated January 12, 2000 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda reversing the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baroda passed under sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Party-in-person namely the revisionist, Shri KC Shah, learned APP and Shri Pravin Gondaliya on behalf of Shri YS Lakhani for respondent no.1 have been heard. None appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service of notice.3. The revisionist had purchased a flat on the ground floor of Shubh Apartments, 51-Vishwaas Colony, behind National Plaza, Alkapuri, Baroda. When he purchased the flat there was no provision of electricity, nor for supply of water and no electric motor was installed for lifting water to supply it to other flats in the complex. Subsequently, the builder installed water pump run by electricity for lifting water so as to make it reach to other flats in the complex. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!Unisilk Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1029; 2001(74)ECC560; 2001(134)ELT40(Guj); (2001)1GLR777
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. The petitioner is a company at Hong Kong and is an exporter of raw silk to various countries including India. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner company seeks quashing of action of seizure and confiscation of its goods (quantity of Mulberry Raw Silk sent by ship and received at Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat) under order dated 16.2.1999, 17.2.1999, 1.3.1999 and 8.3.1999 for various consignments (collectively annexed as Annexure G to the petition). 3. The impugned action of seizure is taken and the orders of confiscation are passed under Section 110 and Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred for brevity as the 'Act'). 4. The necessary facts leading to the seizure and confiscation of the alleged illegally imported goods are as under :- Between January to February 1998, the petitioner company entered into contracts with various Indian buyers for shipment of 100% Mulberry Raw Silk whereunde...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Vasava, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shantaben W/O Ma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR783
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/ original complainant has brought under challenge the common judgment and order dated January 23, 1998 recorded in Criminal Revision Applications No. 15 and 16 of 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat by which he rejected both the Criminal Revision Applications preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated December 16, 1996 recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, below applications Exhs. 36, 50 and 58 of Criminal Case No. 6185 of 1985 filed by the petitioner. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application Ex.50 submitted by the petitioner for examining other witnesses who were cited in the criminal complaint before framing of the charges for providing sufficient material to the court to frame charge for the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondents whereas application Ex.36 ...
Tag this Judgment!Manish H. Damani, General Secretary Vs. Director, Government Printing ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)GLR58
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Assistant Compositor at the Government Printing Press at the relevant time. It is claimed in the petition that he was General Secretary of Gujarat State Government Press Employees Federation. The petitioner conveyed certain information to the Press which was published in 'Sandesh' Newspaper of 24th March 1987, a copy of which is annexed to the petition at Annexure 'A'. In view of the allegations made in the press without giving any detail, the petitioner was called upon by a letter dated 29th April 1987, vide Annexure 'B', to substantiate the allegations, so that an inquiry can be held if there is any substance in the allegations. The petitioner addressed a letter stating that he is a 'protected workman', and no action can be taken against him for the statement made by him before the press, and made further allegations in the said letter. By letter dated 27.5.1987, vide Annexure 'D', the petitioner's attention was drawn to Rule 9 of the G...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Suratwala Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR94
ORDER (15-9-2000)24. At this stage, after the above judgment and order was dictated, but before it could be signed, Mr. Pranav Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the judgment and order may not be signed as he wishes to make further submissions in the matter. This request is granted. S. O. to 19th September, 2000.FURTHER ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »