Gujarat Court September 2000 Judgments
Bhikhubhai Somabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1442
H.R. Shelat, J. 1. On 30th October, 1990, the Collector for the District of Banaskantha at Palanpur passed the order withdrawing the notice and refusing to levy more stamp duty qua the Sale Deeds executed and registered. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by such order, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order of the Collector.2. The facts which led the petitioner to prefer the present petition may in brief be stated. In 1982 in favour of the opponent No. 4, a Sale deed was executed when he purchased the property and another Sale Deed was executed in favour of the opponent Nos. 4 and 5 to 9, who also purchased another property. The petitioner who came to know about the sale transactions complained to the Collector on 12th July, 1982 bringing the facts to his notice that the said two Sale deeds executed were not sufficiently stamped and the value for payment o...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ780; (2001)3GLR2528
J.N. Bhatt, J. PREFATORY PROFILE :1. After having, extensively, examined the testimonial collection and documentary evidence and having heard the elaborate and marathon submissions, in this group of 10 appeals, before, we discuss, determine and adjudicate upon the controversies raised relating to the negligence and the amount of compensation, in the realm of law of tort, following inevitable aspects, ought to be considered and articulated.1. What is the fortune, only misfortunes can say.2. The great and staggering human loss on account of road mishap contributing and affecting the national growth and resources.3. The unsafe, avoidable, travelling and hazardous way of driving, that too of a public utility concern.Since this group of ten appeals raise painful but common, heart-stealing but identical facts emanating from the common judgment resolving eleven claims and also arising out of the common accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. As the ill-luck would have ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanjibhai Pethabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1587; (2001)4GLR3310
K.R. Vyas, J. 1. While considering the request for bail, we heard the matter at length and after hearing, we found that the only question which is required to be decided is about the truthfulness of the dying declaration. We have, therefore, decided to hear the appeal finally. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have stated before us that they will have no objection if the appeal is heard finally instead of deciding the question of bail. This is particularly in view of the fact that the paper book is ready and there will not be any difficulty in taking up the matter for final hearing.2. The appellant- accused who is convicted by the learned City Sessions Judge for an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC in Sessions Case No. 248 of 1995 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months, has challenged the said judgment and order dated 30.9.1999 by way of this appeal.3. The accused who is the husban...
Tag this Judgment!Lalludas Children Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR50(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C. J.1. In the case of the assessee which claims the status of a valid trust in the name of Shri Lalludas Children Trust, for the assessment year 1978-79, the following question of law has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in iaw, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that no appeal was maintainable under Section 246(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the assessment order made on protective basis ?'2. For answering the above question posed, a few facts need be stated as under :The Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1978-79 passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act describing the same to be a 'protective assessment' holding that the assessee is not a valid trust as it is found to be against the rule of perpetuity. The income claimed by the assessee as a trust was distributed amongst the ben...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kedraj Agricultural Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)23; [2002]253ITR346(Guj)
A.R. Dave,J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-taxAppellate 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 coming to the conclusion that for the purposes of calculating relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the gross profit has to be determined after including therein interest/salary paid by the assessee to its partners which are disallowable under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the order of rectification passed under Section 154 of the Act by the Income-tax Officer was liable to be cancelled ?'2. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Naik, appearing for th...
Tag this Judgment!Lalludas Children Trust Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Guj)588
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.In the case of the assessee which claims status of a valid trust in the name of Shri Lalludas Children Trust, for the assessment year 1978-79, the following question of law has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that no appeal was maintainable under section 246(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the assessment order made on protective basis?'2. For answering the above question posed, a few facts need be stated as under :The assessing officer for the assessment year 1978-79 passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act describing the same to be 'protective assessment' holding that the assessee is not a valid trust as it is found to be against rule of perpetuity. The income claimed by the assessee as a trust was distributed amongst the beneficiaries.Aggri...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsinhbhai Bhilabhai Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2441
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner, who was Chief Minister in the State of Gujarat, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made by His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat on 17th April, 2000 in exercise of powers under Section 8(3) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Brief Facts : The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 2397 of 1999, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the decision/approval dated 17th January, 1997 and/or 28th January, 1997, purported to have been given under Section 19(3) of the Act as well as the letter dated 15th March. 1999. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent No. 2, the present Lokayukta has a bias against the petitioner, and therefore, the proceedings pending before the Lokayukta should not be allowed to continue. Learned single Judge on 9th July, 1999 admitted the petition and granted interim relief. Against the order passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Vankar Jahabhai Shankerbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1647
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Revision is preferred by the accused Vankar Jaha Shankarbhai in Criminal Case No. 832/85 against the judgment and order dated 12th October, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Criminal Appeal No. 5/89, and the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi, in Criminal Case No. 832/85, convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under section 326 IPC, and the order of sentence of SI for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/-.2. The complainant Chhanabhai Chaturbhai Vankar lodged a complaint to the effect that on 20th November, 1984, when the complainant was sitting with one Bhudarbhai Kalabhai in his house, the accused persons attacked the said Bhudarbhai Kalabhai the complainant and the others with lethal weapons like Dharia, stick, knife (BARCHHI) etc. and caused grievous injuries to Bhudarbhai Kalabhai, the complainant and others. Pursuant to the said complaint, Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagubhai B. Patel Vs. Dy. District Development Officer, Valsad and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR600
Miss R.M. Doshit, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates.The petitioner, a former Talati-cum-Mantri, challenges the order dated 7th November, 1985, of the Deputy District Development Officer removing the petitioner from service, which is confirmed by the District Development Officer in Appeal on 12th March, 1986, and has been further confirmed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal on 3rd July, 1986, in Appeal No. 304 of 1986. The Review Application No. 15 of 1986 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on 9th January, 1987.2. Somewhere in the year 1972, the petitioner was appointed in Valsad District Panchayat as Talati-cum-Mantri. Upon audit of accounts for the year 1977-78 and the year 1978-79, the petitioner was found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 294-47 ps. Upon receipt of the audit report, a sum of Rs. 105-89 ps. was deposited by the petitioner on 5th May, 1978, and a sum of Rs. 189-08 ps., was deposited by the petitioner on 17th December, 1979. The petitioner was thus a...
Tag this Judgment!Prakashkumar Prahladbhai Patel Vs. District Primary Education Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2467; (2002)1UPLBEC189
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. By a very elaborate order of reference, the learned single Judge has referred the following question for consideration of a Larger Bench : 'In view of the provisions as contained in Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules 1970, the advertisement inviting applications for recruitment made in this case and the fact that no other date (sic., was ?) indicated in the advertisement with reference to the requisite qualifications for recruitment should be judged, which should be the relevant date, the last date of receipt of application or the date of selection in the present case with reference to which the requisite qualification for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher should be judged.' 2. The background of the reference may briefly be noted. The District Primary Education Officer of the District Panchayat, Ahmedabad Invited applications by an advertisement dated 19-9-1994 published in the newspapers dated 22-9-1994 and 26-9-1994 for making recruitment to the post of primar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »