Gujarat Court January 2001 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.
Lakme Limited Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC738; 2001(132)ELT20(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. M/s. Lakme Limited (now known as Trent Ltd.) Petitioners - original accused No.1 has filed this Revision Application before this Court under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as `Code') against the order dated 3rd July, 2000, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari, below Exh.90 in Criminal Case No.4061 of 1992. The learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the applicants wherein the applicants prayed that the court may stay the proceedings of Criminal Case No.4061/92 till the proceedings initiated vide show-cause-notice F.No.V(14F)-1/OA/86 dated 9.6.1986 are not finalised by the highest appellate authority under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:2.1 M/s. Lakme Limited has been a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of goods like cosmetics at the relev...
Cit Vs. Dr. U.S. Navlekar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN514(Guj)
ORDERPanchal, J. By means of filing these applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the revenue has prayed to direct the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', to raise and refer to this court three questions of law set out in Para 4 of the applications.Facts2. The assessee derives income from medical profession, interest, etc. The assessee is one of the trustees of Dr. Navlekar Family Trust. The trust was settled by Shri K.S. Thakkar who had contributed Rs. 2,000 towards the corpus of the trust. The trust had purchased leproscopic instrument and shown hire charges income from leproscopic instrument for family planning operations carried out by the assessee. The Income Tax Officer by his order dated 27-3-1986 for the assessment year 1983-84 in the case of the trust had held that the income declared in the case of the trust, in fact, belonged to the assessee. The Income Tax Officer had relied upon his own order in the case...
Rajeshkumar Bhikhabhai Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2520
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. These two interconnected writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Special Civil Application No. 7404 of 1999 has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the order dated 10-12-1998 Annexure-'B' passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal. In this petition, the averments are that the landholder Lalitaben Bhikhabhai had filled up Form under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was scrutinized by the competent authority, and after giving opportunity of hearing, through its order dated 12-10-1984, the competent authority declared 2963 sq. metres of vacant land as surplus land vide Annexure-'A'. Proceedings under Sections 10(1) and 10(5) of the Act were followed and possession of excess vacant land was taken by the petitioner on 14-11-1984. Possession was given voluntarily by the respondents. Compensation was awarded under Section 11 of the Act, which was received by the land-holder. The excess land w...
Amrok Logistics Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Digvijay Cement Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Guj299
A.L. Dave, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the order rendered below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 128/2000 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jamnagar on 18-9-2000.2. The present appellant preferred the said Civil Suit for declaration and injunction against invocation of Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant to Respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 25 lacs. Respondent No. 2 is a Bank who undertook the guarantee. For sake of convenience, Appellant is addressed to as the plaintiff and respondents No. 1 and 2 are addressed to as defendants No. 1 and 2 in this judgment.3. The facts leading to the present appeal can briefly be stated as under :3.1 An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on February 20, 1999 whereby the plaintiff was appointed as the Consignment Sale Agent (C.S.A.) for the State of Kerala and Tamilnadu on certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, one more agreement was entered into between the said parties on September 6, 199...
Saiyad AlumuddIn Saiyad Mohmadkadri Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3571
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application was filed in this Court on 26th March 1990 for quashing the notifications issued under Sec.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question and seeking a declaration that the provisions of Sec.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are ultra-vires and violative of the provisions of Articles 23, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. So far as the challenge to the validity of the provisions of Sec.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are concerned, the same are not pressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments. Even otherwise, there is no substance in the challenge to the validity of these provisions.2. It is given out by Mr. R.N. Shah that the original petitioner, namely, Saiyad Alumuddin Saiyad Mohamad Kadri, the sole Trustee and Vahivatkarta of Bavasidi Kabrastan Trust at Saiyadpura, Surat expired on 18th Nov.1994 and therefore, a Civil Ap...
Cit Vs. Kashiram Textiles Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN831(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1978-79 :'1. Whether, in law and on facts, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the process carried out by the assessee amounts to manufacturing activity ?2. Whether, in law and on facts, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Unit No. 1 as claimed ?'2. The assessee in this case is a private limited company engaged in the business of bleaching, dyeing, printing and processing of grey cloth purchased from the market and its resale. During the period under consideration, the Income Tax Officer made an addition in respect of the purchase alleged to have been made from two parties aggregating to Rs. 2,07,800. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assess...
Bharatbhai H. Rawal Vs. Jyotsanaben D/O Babubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC7; (2001)2GLR1391
D.P. Buch, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 21-4-1997 recorded by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Hindu Marriage Petition No.7 of 1995, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition of the present appellant filed under Section 13(1)(a) and under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for getting divorce against the present respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. The appeal was admitted on 4-10-2000 by this Court. The respondent was served and Mr. Ashish H Shah, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. At the commencement of argument, a preliminary objection was raised about maintainability of the appeal. 3. It is clear that the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the learne...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Silver Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR728(Guj)
A R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law arising out of the order passed in Income-tax Application No. 1765/Ahd/ 1983 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has been referred to this court, for its opinion, under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted in respect of the excess provision for bonus amounting to Rs. 54,745 written off by the assessee during the year in question ?'2 The learned advocate, Shri B. B. Naik, has appeared for the Revenue and, though served, nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee. In the circumstances, looking to the importance of the issues involved in this reference application, the learned advocate, Shri J. P. Shah, has been appointed to assist th...
Shantaben Harilal Brahmbhatt Vs. Hasmukhlal Maneklal Chokshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1615
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 at the instance of the petitioner-tenant original defendant, who was sued by the respondent plaintiff-landlord for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The landlord had filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months, that he had failed to comply with the demand made in the statutory notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, and that therefore, the landlord is entitled to a decree of eviction.3. The defendant-tenant contested the suit and also raised a contention in the written statement as to standard rent. It was also contended by the defendant-tenant that the suit notice is illegal, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the landlord dealing with the various ...
Govindbhai N. Makwana Vs. Divisional Security Commissioner (R.P.F.) W. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1851
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates.2. The petitioner before this Court is a former employee of the Western Railway and challenges the order dated 10th March, 1992 made by the Divisional Security Commissioner [R.P.F.], Vadodara, the respondent No. 1 herein and the Order dated 6th October, 1992 made by the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, in appeal. The facts leading to the present petition are as under :-3. In or around the year 1970, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 in the Western Railway. On 6th July, 1991, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet. It was alleged that on 11th January, 1991, while under sick list at M.A.L.B. at about 19-00 hours, the petitioner went to the Office in the drunken state and started abusing the Railway Protection Force staff and officers at the main gate. The constable on duty Jagdish Prasad who was on the main gate, objected, but the petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »