Gujarat Court November 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.
Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Conciliation Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ70Guj
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat-petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of respondent No. 1 Conciliation Officer, respondent No. 2 Deputy Labour Commissioner and respondent No. 3 Labour Commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, in not proceeding further with the demand of considering the workers as regular employees of the the respondent-company Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (Private) Ltd., respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-company). The petitioner has also challenged the decision of the respondent-] company to retrench the services of the workers who are members of the petitioner-union and whose names are mentioned at Annexure A to the petition as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and bad in the eye of law.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:3. The petitioner is a union representing the cause of workers whose names are mentioned at Annexure A in the present petition. The petitioner-union states that the worke...
Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Conciliation Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR728]
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat-petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of respondent No. 1 Conciliation Officer, respondent No. 2 Deputy Labour Commissioner and respondent No. 3 Labour Commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, in not proceeding further with the demand of considering the workers as regular employees of the respondent company Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Company). The petitioner has also challenged the decision of the respondent company to retrench the services of the workers who are members of the petitioner union and whose names are mentioned at Annexure-A to the petition as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and bad in the eye of law.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:2.1 The petitioner is a union representing the cause of workers whose names are mentioned at Annexure-A in the present petition. The petitioner union states that the workers at Anneu...
Cit Vs. Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Guj)20
D.A. Mehta, J.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 assessee 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 financial year ended on 31-3-1981. 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 1-9-1972, as revenue expenditure.(ii) Rs. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›