Gujarat Court November 2001 Judgments
V.K. Mansuri and ors. Vs. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ481Guj
D.P. Buch, J.1. The appellants abovenamed have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in order to challenge the judgment and order dated March 30, 2001 recorded by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12531 of 2000 under which the learned single Judge dismissed the said petition of the appellants at the admission stage. The appellants abovenamed preferred the aforesaid Special Civil Application in this Court against the respondents above named stating that the petitioners have been performing work of a permanent nature in the premises of respondent No. 1 and they have been performing their duties continuously and without any break since 1981. That with a view to avoid grant of permanency benefits to the appellant, respondent No. 1 has shown the appellants as employees of a contractor. That the appellants are, at present, working through respondent No. 2 and prior thereto the appellants were working through Ahmedabad Electricity C...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR481(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.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 28-5-2001 (Annexure A), issued by the Additional Commissioner, 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, Surat.2. On 30-11-1994, the petitioner filed its return of income for the accounting year 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994, particularly in the following terms (Annexure B to the petition) :Income from business Rs.Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Alisha Dullasha Saiyad Vs. Conservator of Forests, Bhuj and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1402
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. Shri Alisha Dullasha Saiyad petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing and setting aside order dated 1-2-1986 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests removing the petitioner from service and also order dated 15-12-1986 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No. 156 of 1986 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner at Annexure-L to the petition.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 31-12-1974. The petitioner was posted at Nakhatrana in Kutch District. The petitioner received a charge-sheet dated 25-1-1982 from the Conservator of Forests. In the aforesaidcharge-sheet three charges were levelled against the petition, namely, (1) misbehaviour with superior officers, (2) disobeying the orders of the superiors and (3) unauthorised absence from duty. 2.2 The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 12-2-1982. The petitioner denied the ch...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Hindustan Packaging Com. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC204(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Leave to amend. Heard Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Additional Advocate-General with Mr. U.K. Bhatt, learned A.G.P. for the applicant and Mr R.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. The learned Advocate-General places the draft amendment for redrafting the question proposed to be referred. The original question which was the subject-matter of Reference Applications Nos. 7 and 8 of 1997 was as under :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal dated June 26, 1995 is perverse or not when it held that sales of printed laminated paper rolls along with polythelene strip bobbins are card board boxes and cartons covered by entry No. 12(iv) of the Schedule -II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and is liable to tax accordingly and penalties is removed ?'3. The Tribunal rejected the reference applications under Subsection (1) of Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for brevity) on...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Dhanjibhai Patel and anr. Vs. Rohitbhai Dhanjibhai BIn Goka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj197
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. This LPA has been listed before us with Civil Application No. 9257 of 2001 filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the LPA in Civil Application No. 3602 of 2001 which was filed seeking order under Order 39, Rule 2A read with Section 151 of CPC. Civil Application No. 3602 of 2001 was disposed of by giving certain directions and observations by judgment and order dated 27-6-2001 which is the subject matter of this LPA. 2. On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel Mr. D. C. Dave raised an objection that the present LPA preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27-6-2001 passed in the proceedings in appeal from order for alleged breach of the order of injunction passed therein under Order 39, Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. In support of the preliminary objection, it is stated that the impugned order which has been pass...
Tag this Judgment!Tetra Pak India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC165(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-company has prayed for a direction to the Sales Tax Officer (3), City Division-2, Vadodara, to follow the decision dated June 26, 1995 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Second Appeal Nos, 238 and 239 of 1988 (annexure A/1) and to refund to the petitioner the amount of sales tax with interest thereon. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals 7), Range-4, Vadodara, to decide the petitioner's appeal for the financial years 1983-84 to 1991-92 (both inclusive).2. Mr. R.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Tribunal has already held in the aforesaid judgment dated June 26, 1995 that good's in question sold by the petitioner fall within item No. 12(iv) of Schedule II, Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, and, therefore, the respondents are required to follow the said decision in respect of all the releva...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantrai J. Mali Vs. Kantilal Zaverbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3438
D.P. Buch, J.1. The petitioner above named has preferred this petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 29.9.1989 in Revision Application No. 71/1985. The facts of the case leading to this writ petition may be briefly stated as under :-1. The petitioner above named had filed tenancy case No. 8855/1983 before the learned Mamlatdar and A.L.T. (Agriculture Land Tribunal) at Pardi for an order permitting the petitioner to purchase 37 gunthas of land of survey No. 96 B/1 situated at village Motha Vaghchipa in Pardi taluka. The learned Mamlatdar recorded the evidence produced before him, and thereafter, he came to a decision that the petitioner was entitled to be held to be a deemed purchaser in respect of 7 gunthas of the said survey number. It was also directed that the petitioner shall purchase the said piece of...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Thakersinhbhai Amethia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR490
J.R. Vora, J.1. This Revision Application has been filed by the original accused of Criminal Case No. 488/86 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Kalavad, District Jamnagar, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, dated 27th September, 1994, in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1988, by which conviction awarded by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalavad to the present petitioners in Criminal Case No. 488 of 1986 for the charges under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar.2. Brief facts of the case and very material data for deciding this Revision is as under:The then Food Inspector Mr. J.M. Soni, predecessor of respondent herein Mr. S.B. Bhatt obtained a sample of 'Tikha Ganthiya' (farsan) from Chetna Hotel, Ranuja. At that time, present petitioner No.1 was present while present petitioner No.2 was the owner of the said Chetana...
Tag this Judgment!Kantaben T. Shah and ors. Vs. Devendrakumar C. Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj160; (2002)2GLR1005
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The respondent No. 1 - original defendant No. 1-Devendrakumar C. Shah is Organizer of Rama Apartments. He staying in Flat No. 9 of the said Apartments. The defendant No. 2 -Ashish Devendrakumar Shall, son of defendant No. 1 is the builder carrying out construction work in the name and style of 'Pintu Builders & Organizer'. He staying with his father i.e. defendant No. 1 in Rama Apartments. The said apartments were constructed by the defendant No. 2. In all 12 flats have been constructed and (1) Shri Vimalkant J. Bhojak, (2) Shri Ramanlal Hiralal Thakkar, (3) Smt. Prabhaben Champaklal Soni, (4) Smt. Yashodharahen Vasudev Thakkar, (5) Jayshreeben Kantilal Pathak, (6) Urmilaben Manilal Patel, (7) Kantaben Thakarshibhai Shah, (8) Dr. .Bhanvarlal Mangilal Jain and (9) Shri Bhavsar, respectively the plaintiffs No. 1 to 9 have purchased the said flats from defendant No. 1 and since 1990-91 the plaintiffs are staying in their respective flats. As per the document, each memb...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR345(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Revenue has sought reference on the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to allowance of royalty payment of Rs. 12,16,694 as revenue expenditure ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs being know-how fees and royalty of Rs. 1,03,068 payable to the Jyoti Ltd. are allowed as revenue expenses ?(iii) Whether in law and on facts, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 50,000 as technical report fees ?'2. The assessment year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year ended on March 31, 1981. The assessee is a limited company. The assessee claimed deduction on the following items in its return of income:(i) royalty payment of Rs. 12,16,694 paid to Jyoti Ltd. under agreement dated September 1, 1972, as revenue expe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »