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.
Sangar Gagu Dhula Vs. Shah Laxmiben Tejshi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Guj329; (2001)1GLR697
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This appeal has been placed before this Bench for consideration of specific questions framed by the learned single Judge who was hearing this appeal, on the facts and circumstances as under. 2. The original plaintiff as mortgagor had mortgaged his property, being a residential house with appurtenant land, with the defendant-mortgagee. The consideration for the same was taken by the mortgagor in the sum of Rs. 11000/-. The mortgage deed specifically contemplated that this consideration will be repayable by the mortgagor to the mortgagee on the expiry of 99 years from the date of the transaction (the deed of mortgage), and on the consideration being repaid, the mortgagor shall be entitled to redemption of the property. 3. The mortgage deed was executed on 15th December, 1914. However, before the expiry of the stipulated period of 99 years, the heirs of the mortgagor sought to redeem the property by filing a suit on 5th February, 1974. The redemption was sought before th...
Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR396(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. Rule. Mr. M. R. Bhatt and Co. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents, Having regard to the facts of the case and in view of joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. By means of filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order dated May 17, 2000 passed by the Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes, by which the claim made by the petitioner for refund under Section 237 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is rejected. The petitioner has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to give refund of Rs. 19,805 and Rs. 32,206 to the petitioner with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent, per annum from the date of payment by the petitioner to the date of refund to the petitioner.3. The petitioner is a limited company. ...
Madhu Fabrics Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas487(Guj); (2002)4GLR3688
ORDER1. The petitioners Madhu Fabrics Ltd. and Madhu Textiles Ahmedabad Limited, by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 5124 and 25 of 2000 respectively, have challenged the orders dated 14-2-2000 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') Annexure A and order dated 4-5-2000 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Finance Reconstruction ('AAIFR') Annexure B. The BIFR, after considering the facts, opined that the petitioner-company is not likely to become viable in future and, therefore, it is just, equitable and in public interest that it should be wound up under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA'). The AAIFR, in appeal, confirmed the said order.2. Company petition No. 31 of 2000 is for consideration of Board opinion in the matter of Madhu Fabrics Limited while Company Petition No. 32 of 2000 is for consideration of Board opinion with respect to Madhu Textiles Ahmedabad Limited. The petition...
Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Guj)220
J.M. Panchal, J.Rule. Mr. M.R. Bhatt & Co. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the facts of the case and in view of joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order dated 17-5-2000, passed by the Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes, by which the claim made by the petitioner for refund under section 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is rejected. The petitioner has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to give refund of Rs. 19,805 and Rs. 32,206 to the petitioner with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of payment by the petitioner to the date of refund to the petitioner.3. The petitioner is a limited company. It...
Saraladevi Sarabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR745(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference, at the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred for our opinion with reference to the assessment year 1974-75 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the contribution in the partnership firm amounted to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting into capital gains chargeable to tax ?'2. At the hearing of the reference, Mr. R. K. Patel, learned counsel for the assessee, and Mr. Kureshi, learned counsel for the Revenue, state that the controversy raised herein is squarely covered by the decision in Sunil Sid-dharthbhai v. CIT : [1985]156ITR509(SC) .3. In the aforesaid decision, the apex court has held that where a partner in a firm makes over his personal assets as his contribution to its capital, though there is a transfer of such assets, the consideration which a partner receives on making over his personal assets ...
Ballkhan Doskhan Joya Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR914]; (2001)3GLR2666
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 29-2-2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 546 of 1995 (reported in : (2000)IILLJ1116Guj , whereby the Award of reinstatement of the employee with 25% of back wages passed by the Labour Court on 15-10-1994 has been set aside.2. Necessary facts giving rise to the appeal are as under :-The respondent-Board, by an order issued on 30-7-1979, appointed the appellant on work charge establishment on the post of Helper and he joined the post on 6-8-1979. The appointment was for a period of 190 days and his services were terminated on 29-11-1979. The employee was then inducted as an Apprentice Lineman on 19-2-1981 and his services were informally terminated or discontinued on 27-11-1981 on the ground that the contract of apprenticeship sent to the Apprenticeship Adviser in accordance with Section 4(5) of the Apprenti...
State of Gujarat Vs. Antheny Francis Kodero
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2926
C.K. Buch, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat under sec. 378 of CrPC against the judgment dated 21.5.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara in Special Case No. 6/86 whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents accused of the offences punishable under sections 5(1)(d) & 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under sec. 161, 165 & 165-A of the IPC.2(i) In order to appreciate the grievances expressed by the appellant- State of Gujarat in the memo of appeal, we would like to narrate some basic facts of the prosecution case. Undisputedly, respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as accused no.1 ) is the husband of respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as accused no.2). At the relevant point of time, accused no.1 was serving as a Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as PHC for short) at village Limdi of district Panchmahals. Obviously, exh.13 - the complaint lodged by the complain...
Maheshkumar Babulal Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and 1
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3568
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. Babulal Chhaganlal Solanki, father of the petitioner served for about 30 years and expired on 9.9.1981 while in service. He was serving as Head Constable Grade II. The petitioner's father left behind the petitioner, his widow and three younger brothers of the petitioner and four minor sisters. The petitioner was born on 1.12.1965 and he was minor on the date of death of his father. On 27th June, 1989, the petitioner moved an application Annexure 'A', to the respondent for giving him appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father. Necessary enquiry was made on the application, but on 11.7.1991, his application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not apply within the period of limitation, vide order dated 27.6.1989. It is this order contained in Annexure 'B' dated 27.6.1989 which is under challenge in this writ petition. Even after rejection of his application, the petitioner approached on various occasions the respondents, inter-alia requ...
Shamalsha Girdhari Co. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3180
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner, by filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 236 of 1981 by which the G.R.T. has confirmed the orders of the Deputy Collector as well as the Mamlatdar.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is holding certain agricultural land in the State of Karnataka and he has purchased certain agricultural land in the State of Gujarat and sale deed was executed in his favour. At the time of purchase, relevant entry to that effect was posted in the revenue record. The authorities found that the transaction in question is contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), and therefore, proceedings under Section 84-C were initiated by the Mamlatdar, Valsad. The aforesaid proceedings were numbered as Tenancy case 94-C/4704/78. After hearing the concerned parties, t...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Naginbhai K. Tandel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3525
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation-Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the judgment and award dated 27-12-1991 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Navsari in Reference (LCN) No. 544 of 1989 wherein the Labour Court was pleased to reinstate Shri Naginbhai Kanjibhai Tandel, workman-conductor without back wages.2. The facts giving rise to die present petition are as under:Shri Naginbhai Kanjibhai Tandel was working as conductor with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Valsad Division, petitioner herein. It has been stated in the petition that the respondent was working since 1965 and since 1965 he was committing irregularities in connection with issuance of tickets and misappropriation of the Corporation fund. It was stated in the petition that the respondent-employee had committed said irregularities. It was alleged that respondent has committed such alleged irregularities on 17-5-1965, 7-11-1968, 2-10-1968, 31-12-69, 6-12-1990, 11-7-1970, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›