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.
Vinubhai Devjibhai Yadav Vs. Bhikhabhai Kurajibhai Sadadiya and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR698
H.R. Shelat, J.1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 27th December, 1995, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat declaring the petitioner disqualified under the provisions of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualifications of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts which led the petitioner to prefer this petition may in brief be stated. A notification dt.2/5/1995 for holding the election of Jasdan Taluka Panchayat on 11/6/1995 was issued. The petitioner filed his nomination form for the Kanpar-Pipaliya Constituency, stating that he was to contest the election under the aegis of the Indian National Congress. He, therefore, prayed for the allotment of a symbol namely 'Palm' which is the party's symbol for the purpose of contesting the election. Other six persons...
Smt. Lataben Khimbhandbhai Piprodia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR863
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. The matter pertains to the grant of authorisation for Fair price shop in Gotalavadi area of the city of Surat. There are two competitors namely, the petitioner and the respondent No.4. The Advisory Committee at the level of Taluka has recommended for grant of authorisation of Fair Price shop in the area aforesaid in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of authorisation for the Fair Price shop in the area concerned was made on 26th May, 1987. Final agreement has also been sent by the respondent No.3 for authorisation of this Fair Price shop to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not permitted to run the Fair Price shop and on inquiry made, she came to know that the respondent No.4 had preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 in the matter and the respondent No.2 has granted the interim relief. In the appeal aforesaid, the respondent No.4 has not impleaded the petitioner as a party. The appeal filed by the respondent ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Guj)419
D. M. Dharmadhikari, C. J.In the case of the present assessee for the assessment year 1978-79, the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have been referred to us for answer :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled in law to the allowance of Rs. 2,33,300, being royalty paid to M/s Mettur Beardsell Ltd. as claimed (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to allowance of Rs. 7,771 being reimbursement of medical expenses paid to Managing Director (iii) Whether the Tribunal has been right in law in sustaining the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 8,969 in respect of guest house expenses and directing allowance of depreciation on dead stock and furniture 2. Learned counsel appearing for the department (sic-Assessee) and the department submit that question No. 1 has been squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Ashoka Mills (1996) 21...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jasuben Velji Dhila Wd/O Veljinamori ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC372
1. Appeal admitted. Learned advocate Mr. Shah waives service on behalf of respondent No. 1. Upon joint request the First Appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. This is appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') since the challenge in this appeal is against the compensation on the structured basis under Section 163A of the Act.3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh, at Bhuj, in M.A.C.P. No. 397 of 1996, filed at the instance of the respondents original claimants, passed an award whereby the original claimants came to be granted an amount of Rs. 2,65,500/- with running interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of application till deposit under Section 163A of the Act against the appellant.4. Since the impugned order under Section 163A of the Act tantamounts to only interim compensation during the pendency of the main claim petition under Section 166 of the new Act which is required to be adjudicated up...
Pranav Prabha Shrivahal Vs. Dalichand Chhaganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR235
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. The present judgment and order is delivered in the context of my earlier orders dated 4th August 2000, 11th August 2000 and 25th August 2000. The same are already on record, and therefore, I do not propose to reproduce the same.2. Ms. Sudha Gangwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that she does not have the papers of the present case, and is therefore, unable to assist the Court in the matter. In the circumstances, I now proceed to deal with the matter on the basis of the record.3. This is a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act at the instance of the original tenants (defendants) in the suit.4. The facts of the case and the judgment and order impugned in the present revision viz., the decision of the Revisional Bench in Revision Applications Nos. 34 and 36 of 1983 clearly indicates that the trial Court, while dealing with H.R.P. Suit No. 1664 of 1979, decided the landlord's application Exh. 34 for determination of interim rent (and gave incid...
Heir of Kashiben C. Chhaganlal D/O Chimanlal Chhaganlal Vs. Heirs of B ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1320
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is landlord Revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act against Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court directing eviction of the tenants - respondents from the Suit accommodation.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are as under :The deceased plaintiff - land lady Smt. Kashiben filed Suit for eviction of the defendants from the disputed accommodation on the ground of non-payment of rent for a period more than six months. The disputed accommodation was let out to the defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 22/- + Rs. 1/- p.m. as water tax. The defendants were required to pay rent regularly at the end of every month. They did not pay rent from 17.7.1964 to 16.1.1977 hence the amount of Rs. 3450/- fell due as arrears of rent from the defendants. These arrears were deposited by the tenants in the previous Suit. However, from 17.1.1977 to 16.6.1977 the defendants again fell in arrears of r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›