Gujarat Court January 2001 Judgments
Rameshbhai Nagarbhai Parmar and anr. Vs. Halvad Nagarpalika and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR785]; (2001)2GLR1516
A.R. Dave, J. 1. As facts and legal issues involved in all these petitions are similar, at the request of the learned Advocates, all the petitions are heard together. 2. The petitioners are daily-wagers who were working as Class III and IV workmen under respondent No. 1- Nagarpalika. It is their case that they were appointed as daily-wagers during the period commencing from 1996 to 1999. Initially, at the time of filing of the petitions, it was an apprehension of the petitioners that their services might be termintated without following legal procedure, and therefore, they had prayed that the respondents should be directed not to terminate their services but during the pendency of the petitions, they were relieved, and therefore, the petitions were amended and by virtue of the amendment, it has now been prayed that they should be reinstated in service as daily-wagers. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioners were working as daily-wagers in different departments of responden...
Tag this Judgment!Premjibhai and Sons Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR625(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the notice dated August 29, 2000 (annexure A), under Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-2, Rajkot, the sole respondent herein.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, briefly stated and as averred by the petitioner, are as under :The petitioner is engaged in the business of ship breaking at Alang, District Bhavnagar. In the course of its regular business, the petitioner sells materials to various parties from time to time and its purchasers at times pay cash or at times by their own cheques drawn on their own bank accounts or at times the cheques are obtained from other concerned persons with whom they may have transactions. The petitioner is concerned with realisation of the sale price whether the payme...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nipa Twisting Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Guj)465; [2003]263ITR697(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.:1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred following question of law for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), for asst. yr. 1979-80 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of investment allowance ?'Facts2. The respondent-assessee was a firm and was carrying on business of twisting Majuri in the name and style of M/s Nipa Twisting Works. During the previous year, relevant to the asst. yr. 1981-82, the firm was dissolved on 30th June, 1980, and its assets had been distributed amongst the partners in specie. The reserve credited under Section 82A(4) of the Act had also been so distributed. While framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, ITO withdrew the investment allowance of Rs. 20,899 allowed to the assessee on the ground that on the dissolution of the firm, the machiner...
Tag this Judgment!Priya Blue Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR615(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiora'ri or any other appropriate writ for quashing the notice dated August 29, 2000 (Annexure A), under Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-2, Rajkot, the sole respondent herein.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, briefly stated and as averred by the petitioner, are as under :The petitioner is engaged in the business of ship breaking at Alang, District Bhavanagar. In the course of its regular business, the petitioner sells materials to various parties from time to time and its purchasers at times pay cash or at times by their own cheques drawn on their own bank accounts or at times the cheques arc obtained from other concerned persons with whom they may have transactions. The petitioner is concerned with the realisation of the sale price whether the...
Tag this Judgment!Shamlaji Arogya Seva Trust Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3637
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises from refusal of the State Government to grant affiliation to the Homoeopathic College of the petitioner. The Education and the Health & Family Welfare Departments of the State Government are the respondent Nos. 1 and respectively (hereinafter referred as 'the respondent' for short), while the Chairman heading the Centralised Admission Committee is the respondent No. 2 and the Central Council of Homoeopathy is subsequently joined as the respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner, a registered public trust since 1993, is running a Homoeopathic College at Godhra and proposes to open a new College at Vadodara as India's first and only women's Homoeopathic Medical College. It claims to have made initial appointments and investments for opening the new college. The M.S. University at Vadodara not having the faculty of homoeopathy, the petitioner obtained its No-Objection Certificate and applied for affiliation to Bhavnagar...
Tag this Judgment!Priya Blue Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Guj)306
M.S. Shah, J. :In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the notice dated 29-8-2000 (Annexure 'A'), under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), issued by the Jt. CIT, Special Range-2, Rajkot, the sole respondent herein.2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated and as averred by the petitioner, are as under:2.1 The petitioner is engaged in the business of ship-breaking at Alang, District Bhavanagar. In the course of its regular business, the petitioner sells materials to various parties from time to time and its purchasers at times pay times by their own cheques drawn on their own bank or at, times the cheques are obtained from other concerned persons with whom they may have transactions. The petitioner is concerned with realization of the sale price, whether the payment is made by one mode or the other. The petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Narsinhji Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR125
C.K. Buch, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the accused of Sessions Case No. 362 of 1991 tried and decided by Additional City Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was tried for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 11th June, 1991 at about 11-00 p.m. outside Shahpur Gate, Near Fire Brigade in Kamumiya's chawl at Ahmedabad, he poured kerosene on his wife Kamlaben. At that relevant point of time, he was in drunken condition and with an intention of causing her death, set fire by throwing kerosene lamp. According to the case of prosecution, deceased Kamlaben had married the accused before seven years, and was residing with him. The accused was making allegations against her character and on account of such doubt, he was beating Kamlaben. It is contended by the prosecution that earlier on two occasions, she had gone to her parental house because of ill-treatment, but as her monther-in-law persua...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Indravadan Modi and ors. Vs. Instance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2010
A.L. Dave, J. 1. This is a revision application preferred by the revisioners, who are the original plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2000 pending in District Court, at Vadodara. That suit is preferred by the plaintiffs alleging infringement of Registered Patent No. 183097 dated March 19, 1998, possessed by the plaintiffs by the defendants. In that suit, application for interim injunction was tendered and the learned Assistant Judge, Vadodara, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. The defendants, in reply to the said application, filed an affidavit-in-reply, at Ex. 24, to resist that application and to get the ad-interim order vacated. In that reply, certain contentions were raised which, according to the plaintiffs, amounted to praying for revocation of the patent. According to the plaintiffs, it was a counter-claim for revocation, and therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act read with Section 64 of the said Act, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sonia Joseph Gonsalves Vs. Joseph Avroz Gonsalves
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR43; (2002)1GLR432
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant-original petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned single Judge in Misc. Civil Application No. 2245 of 2000, reviewing the earlier order dated 10-11-2000, which was recorded in a common order disposing of three Revision Application Nos. 505 of 1999, 1707 of 1999 and 1718 of 1999, inter alia contending that the impugned order is totally perfunctory, without application of mind and ex parte.2. Before we examine the merits of the appeal, the main issue which would require consideration and adjudication is as to whether the appeal under Clause 15 is maintainable or not? On this point, we have heard learned Advocate for the appellant threadbare, and he has contended that the rejection of the review application though is recorded in three review applications, which is a commonorder, it is in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the learned Judge of this Court. It was, therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Core Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas501(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated December 21, 2000 in Original Application No. 459 of 1999 passed by the second respondent, viz., the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('the Tribunal') whereby the petitioner's application for stay of proceedings was rejected on the ground that the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act, 1958 ('BRU Act'), cannot prevail over the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('DRT Act').2. When the petition was called out for hearing Mr. M.J. Thakore appeared for Dr. Sonia Hurra on behalf of respondent No. 1 and raised a preliminary objection. It was contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the petition should not be entertained as an appeal was provided under Section 20 of the DRT Act and once a statutory alternative remedy was provided this court should not entertain the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »