Gujarat Court November 2001 Judgments
iqbal Ahmed Mohmad Hasan MomIn Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC373; (2002)1GLR644
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant by this appeal has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25th July, 1995 passed in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1993 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) and 22 of the Narcotic Drug & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. l,00.000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. P.S.I. Mr. Mahmedkha Ahmedkha Baloch, P.W. 5 Exh.13 is the complainant, who has filed complaint at Exh.14. It is alleged against appellant that on 20-2-1993 at about 0-15 hours the complainant with other police officers were on patrolling duty in Athwa Police Station area. The appellant was found near public urinal in a suspicious condition. After searching his person, a small packet was recovered from the pocket of the shirt. After opening the same there were several smaller packets eac...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Prabhudasbhai Modi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1624
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), petitioners, who are accused in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1999 for commission of the offence of murder of one Dr. Sonia Modi, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and facing trial in the said case before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No.15), Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, apprehending that they would not get fair and impartial criminal trial at the hands of the concerned Additional City Sessions Judge, seek transfer of the said Sessions Case pending for hearing on the file of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No.15), Ahmedabad City, which is a part-heard case as oral evidence of eight witnesses has been completed, to any other Court within the District or outside the District within Gujarat.2. The birth of this proceeding has a nexus wit...
Tag this Judgment!Mandavraiji Filling Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1224
K.M. Mehta, J.1. M/s. Mandavraiji Filling Station-petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated August 4, 2000 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.C.') herein and also challenged that though actual order of termination has not been passed by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner reliably learnt that an order terminating the dealership agreement of the petitioner would be passed and challenging the said action of the respondent the petitioner has filed this petition.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :2.1 The petitioner is a dealer of the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The petitioner has been granted dealership of retail out-let for sale of motor spirit (petrol) and high speed diesel at village Sara, Taluka Muli, District Surendranagar and he is carrying on business of dealership of retail out-let of respondent No. 1 which is...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vallabhdas Vithaldas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR543(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In both these references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following common question has been referred for our opinion in the case of the respondent-assessees who are husband and wife, respectively.'Whether, in law and on facts, the Appellate Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the basis of intervention by the Commissioner should be part of the records in the assessment proceedings of the assessee and the statements in the search operations regarding the son of the assessee could not be considered as forming part of assessment of the assessee and thus the action was invalid ?'2. The facts giving rise to these references are as under :Vallabhdas Vithaldas, the respondent in Income-tax Reference No. 65 of 1988 is an individual whose assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on February 19,1985. The respondent in Income-tax Reference No. 66 of 1988--Mrs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Cheminova India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC334(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of pesticides, challenges the notices dated August 2, 2001 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Surat, under Section 41B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) for making provisional assessment for the financial years 1997-98 to 2000-01 for levy of additional purchase tax under Section 15B of the Act. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ to permanently restrain the respondent from levying any additional purchase tax under Section 15B.2. The facts leading to filing of the petition, briefly stated and as averred by the petitioner, are as under :The petitioner is a manufacturing unit which is eligible to sales tax incentive scheme under which the purchases made by it of raw materials, etc., are nominally taxed in the hands of selling dealer who would recover the same from the manufacturer and the sales m...
Tag this Judgment!Narendrabhai Shankarlal Joshi Vs. Post Master General, Gujarat Circle ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj180
1. The petitioner, who is a retired primary teacher, has moved this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the action on the part of the Post Master General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad whereby the repeated requests of the petitioner to effect the payment in respect of the Indira Vikas Patras (hereinafter referred to as 'the IVP certificates' for short) purchased by the peitioner which were stolen from the custody of the petitioner was not accepted to even after the expiry of the maturity period of the same despite the fact that the petitioner was ready, willing and prepared to accept any reasonable terms and conditions which may be imposed by the respondents for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the post office.2. The petitioner retired as a primary teacher on or about 30th May 1990 and on his retirement, he thought of investing the amount which he received as retirement benefit in IVPs ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Kalpeshkumar Naranbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)3GLR92
H.K. Rathod, J.1. In Special Civil Application No.6175/1999, this Court has heard Mr.S.B.Pandit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitoner - Gujarat Housing Board and Mr.R.M.Chauhan, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 so also Mr.B.S.Patel, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.This Court has also heard Mr.R.M.Chauhan, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.B.S.Patel, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Special Civil Application No.5274/1999.2. So far as Special Civil Application No.6175/1999 is concerned, this Court has issued RULE on 20th August, 1999 and also issued notice as to interim relief returnable on 16th September, 1999. However, during the interim period, by way of ad-interim relief upto 16th Sept.,1999 has stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 13th January, 1999, subject to conditions that the petitioner shall not allot, dispose of or otherwise, deal with the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Santubhai Ranchodbhai Patel, Himself and Guardian of Vs. Spl. Laq Offi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR692
B.C. Patel, J.1. These appeals are preferred under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the common award made by the Reference Court (Second Extra Assistant Judge, Kheda at Nadiad) in Reference Case Nos. 134/86 to 141/86 dated 6.5.98 whereby the claimants were held entitled to get market price @ Rs.90/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired for which notification was published under Sec. 4 of the Act in 1984.2. The claimants have preferred the appeals being First Appeal No. 4125/98, 4128/98, 4263/98 to 4267/98. The beneficiary, D.D.Institute of Technology preferred appeals being First Appeal No. 6281/98 to 6288/98. The State also preferred appeals being First Appeal Nos. 2078/99 to 2085/99, however, the registration has been refused and therefore the appeals preferred by the claimants as well as the beneficiary are required to be heard. These appeals are heard and disposed of by this comm...
Tag this Judgment!Darayas Bamanshah Medhora Vs. Nariman Bamansha Medhora
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj166; (2002)1GLR474
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 96, C.P.C., at the instance of the appellant who was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1395 of 1998, and who was also the defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 700 of 2000.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the present appeal, it is first necessary to appreciate the factual background. The facts so far they are relevant and pertinent to the decision in the present appeal are not in dispute.3. The present appellant as the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1395 of 1998 before the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that in the said suit the appellant-plaintiff had not sought any decree for any declaration whatsoever. The only relief sought in the said suit was for a permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant of that suit (the present respondent) from disturbing the possession of the appellant-plaintiff in respect of the suit property, and/or from dispossessing the appellant-plaintiff. As a...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Guj)145
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-company, which is engaged in the business of financing and trading in shares, has challenged the notice dated May 28, 2001 (annexure A), issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-1, Surat, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), stating that the said officer had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1994-95 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and, therefore, the petitioner has been called upon to file a return of the petitioner's income for the said assessment year. The notice further states that the same has been issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat.2. On November 30, 1994, the petitioner filed its return of income for the accounting year April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994, particularly in the following terms (ann...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »