Gujarat Court September 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.
Dalsukhrai G. Ghelani Vs. Bhikhalal Harilal Mashru
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1344
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This is landlord's revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act (for shori 'the Act'). 2. One room and osari was let out by the landlord-revisionist to the defendant-respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 4.50 ps. The landlord was residing at Nasik and doing business there. He came to Rajkot on 23-6-1981 whereafter he came to know that the tenant had demolished the entire suit premises without his consent and was constructing new suit premises without written consent or permission from the landlord. Accordingly, the suit for eviction was filed under Section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondent denying the aforesaid allegation of the landlord. He pleaded that the suit premises was in dilapidated condition, on 21-5-1971 one wall of the suit premises had fallen down and on 7-5-1981 the roof of the suit premises bent down. The defendant informed the plaintiff-landlord about the condition of the suit premises through notice ...
Chaudhary Ratanben Kanjibhai Vs. Gordhanbhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj145
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Suthar is appearing for the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Dave has appeared for Mr. A. D. Oza for the respondent Board. This petition was admitted by this Court on 6-5-1992 by issuing rule thereon and it was made returnable on 7th July, 1992.2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the relief that the respondents be directed to declare that the petitioner has passed the New SSC Examination held in the month of March, 1987 of which her seat No. was D.68643. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the mark-sheet issued to her by the respondent board at annexure 'B' which declares the petitioner as having failed.3. The facts of the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was studying in Std. VIII in the year 1982. However, in view of her father's sad demise, she had left the studies. Thereafter, her family members advised her to prosecute study and, therefore, in the year 1987, when the petit...
Dharamsi Morarji Chem. Co. Ltd. Vs. T.J. Fertilizers
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC10(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals Co. Ltd. -petitioners herein have filed this appeal under Section 109 of Trade Marks & Merchandise Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order, dated 12.9.1991 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 2 herein) by his aforesaid order treated the petitioner's Notice of Opposition as amended under Rule 53(1) of Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') which Notice of Opposition was initiated against the registration of Application No. 426202 in CL.I. of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also challenged the order, dated 12.2.92 passed in review petition by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks wherein the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks was pleased to reject the review petition, dated 4.10.1991 filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner tried to review the earlier order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, dated...
State of Gujarat Vs. Khumansinh Hemaji Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1479
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard learned APP Mr. B.Y. Mankad for the appellant,learned counsel Mr. Nitin Amin for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and learned counsel Mr. K.R.Raval for Respondent no.3. Learned counsel Mr. Raval appearing for Respondent No.3 has endorsed the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Amin appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Respondents are original accused and for the sake of convenience, they are referred to as the original accused in this judgment.2. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 30.5.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.75/90 whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 8.8.1990 passed by learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 23/88. Accused nos. 1 & 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under sec. 306 R/w sec.34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer R/I for 5 Years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each ( Rs. ...
Vinodchandra C. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR289(Guj)
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Puj for the petitioners, learned counsel, Mr. Naik for respondent No. 2--Income-tax authority, and learned A. P. P., Mr. Desai for the State in all these matters. As was agreed and stated at the Bar, all these matters involve common legal issues and, therefore, they are, by consent, disposed by this common judgment.2. The petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 959 to 961 of 1992 is a partner in the firm which is the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 965 to 967 of 1992. The petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 962 to 964 of 1992, is also a partner in the same firm as the first mentioned petitioner. Thus, the two partners and the partnership firm have approached this court with a prayer to quash the complaints and the criminal proceedings in the various pending criminal cases initiated by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad.3. The offences alleged against the pe...
Gujarat Housing Board through Housing Commissioner and Anr. Vs. Zulfik ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR590
Kundan Singh, J.1. A common issue arises for decision in all these seven Revision Applications, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The common issue is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit under the provisions of Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for injunction restraining the petitioner-original defendants from taking over the possession of the houses allotted to the respondents.2. The respondents filed Regular Civil Suit Nos. 147 to 153 of 1994 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhavnagar, for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the respondents of the houses allotted to them along with an application for interim injunction. The trial Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suitalong with the application for interim injunction was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed appeals befor...
Aher Pola Parbat Barad Vs. Chituri Sahib, Asstt. S.P., Veraval and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2054
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This revision, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C., has been preferred by the complainant in Criminal Case No. 304 of 1986. It was the case of the complainant that in the night of 28th November, 1985 i.e., in the wee hours of 29th November, 1985 while going home, he passed by the house of one Karsan Punja where wife of the said Karsan Punja - Bai Dahi was shouting for help and ran out of the house. She told the complainant that her husband, her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law were trying to kill her by hanging. Thereupon, the complainant accompanied Bai Dahi to her parents. However, after two days, the accused Police Officers summoned the complainant and his brother Laxman to Panchayat Office. Since Laxman was not at home, the complainant went alone where he was forced to admit offence, pursuant to the complaint being C.R No. 119 of 1985 lodged by Bai Dahi. Since the complainant refused to do so, he was badly manhandled and brutally beaten. He was ta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bavla Gopalak Vividh Karyakarisahakari ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)602; [2002]253ITR97(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. In this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75, at the instance of the Department, the following two questions of law arise for decision of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 5,69,777 could not be taxed as income during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question since the dispute regarding subsidy was not yet decided 2. Whether the view of the Appellate Tribunal that till the final decision on the dispute regarding subsidy is reached, it cannot be said that income has accrued to the assessee and it can be taxed only in the year of accrual when the issue is decided or settled and the amount received by the assessee is correct in law ?' 2. The two questions are virtually interconnecte...
Ganesh Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)167; [2002]253ITR216(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred to this court 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 justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 8,936 imposed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, the Tribunal has erred in law in not taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances while adjudicating upon the aspect of 'mens rea' in penal proceedings under reference and, therefore, ultimate finding confirming the penalty is not sustain able ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was further justified in relying upon and applying the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kochammu Amma : [1980]125ITR624(SC) and whether the order of the Tribunal is reasonable ?' 2. The facts g...
Suresh Chhotalal Verma Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2286; (2001)2GLR1029
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 29.4.1998 of Special Judge, rejecting the application of the revisionist claiming discharge from prosecution in a case lodged u/s 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against him and co accused no. 1.2. Shri R.J. Goswami, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri K.C. Shah, leanred APP, have been heard.3. An application was moved by the revisionist before the Special Judge seeking discharge on the ground that there is absolutely no material to proceed against him for the alleged offences u/s 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that there is a statement of the co accused no. 1 against the revisionist and that was sufficient material for proceeding against the revisionist. In support of this view, reliance has been placed upon a pronouncement of this Court in A.D. SONI V. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE 1997 (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »