Gujarat Court December 2001 Judgments
Sagar Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR335(Guj)
D.A. Mehta J.1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, has challenged in this petition a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), issued on October 3, 1997, for the assessment year 1991-92.2. As the period of four years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year, namely, the assessment year 1991-92, the respondent was called upon by issuance of notice and subsequently affidavit-in-reply dated December 10, 1997, has been filed along with the reasons recorded on August 18, 1997. Rule was issued on December 15, 1997.3. When the matter came up for hearing earlier, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the reasons recorded to the following effect are factually incorrect.'The assessee-firm is engaged in the business of construction. The said firm came into existence vide partnership deed dated October 1, 1990. Therefore, the relevant previous year for the firm for filing its first return of income would be October 1, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Asjwinkumar R. Patel Vs. Executive Director
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR426]
D.H. Waghela, J.1. By these cross-petitions, the employer and the employee have challenged the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference I.T.(Central) No.4 of 1992. By consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions were heard together finally and are disposed by this common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are described as 'the employer' and 'the workman'. By the impugned award dated 13.1.2000, the order terminating the service of the workman has been set aside with the direction to reinstate him on his original post with continuity of service and all the consequential benefits as also with the driection to pay 50% of the backwages and costs of Rs.1,000/-. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the workman was allegedly caught pouring petrol and oil in his scooter on 23.4.1981 while on duty. On the charge of stealing petrol and oil of the company, a criminal case as well as a departmental enquiry was i...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel (Vakil) Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2001
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1577
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28-8-2001 whereby the Writ Petition against the order of his suspension from the Office of elected President of Anand Municipality has been dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner held the Office of President of Anand Municipality. His term of Office is upto 30-6-2002. It is not in dispute that he was detained in jail custody from 13-6-2001 to 6-7-2001 and was released on bail on 7-7-2001. The detention in jail of the petitioner was in connection with a case registered in Anand Police Station as C.R. No. 257 of 2001 and C.R. No. 254 of 2001 for alleged offences under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), read with Section 25(C) of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.3. The Director of Municipalities by his impugned order dated 21-6-2001 in exercise of his...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jivanlal Nebhumal (Huf)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2001
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Guj)370
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. We have heard Mr. Aquil Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant. No substantial question of law, much less any question of law, arises out of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal has appreciated the facts and the evidence on the record and has come to conclusion. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. R & P to be returned to the Tribunal immediately....
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel (Vakil) Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR319
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-08-2001 whereby the Writ Petition against the order of his suspension from the Office of elected President of Anand Municipality has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner held the Office of President of Anand Municipality. His term of Office is upto 30-06-2002. It is not in dispute that he was detained in jail custody from 13-06-2001 to 06-07-2001 and was released on bail on 07-07-2001. The detention in jail of the petitioner was in connection with a case registered in Anand Police Station as C.R. No. 257 of 2001 and C.R. No. 254 of 2001 for alleged offences under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 25(C) of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The Director of Municipalities by his impugned order dated 21-06-2001 in exercise o...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Saurashtra Paints (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj221; (2002)2GLR1109
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The appellant-Municipal Corporation has challenged the judgment and order of the learned single Judge quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Corporation for the sale of the property scheduled in the petition and restraining the Corporation from selling or attempting to sell by public auction or otherwise the property in question and from taking any steps against the property for recovery of its property tax dues for the period prior to the auction sale.2. The respondent-petitioner had prayed for a direction against the Municipal Corporation for not proceeding with the sale of the property for realisation of its dues in respect of that property for any period between 24th February, 1955 and 17th July, 1973. According to the petitioner, since it had purchased the property bearing Survey No. 70 admeasuring 6050 sq. yards (1 Acre & 7 Gunthas approximately), which was specified in the schedule to the petition, in a public auction which was held on 17th ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrasinh Alias Manudara Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3317
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The appellant-accused along with two other accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.167/91.The appellant-accused No.1 was also tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC Section 25-C of the Arms Act for committing murder of Dineshbhai Amin, President of Sneaked Taluka Panchayat in the broad day light on 3.5.1991 at 10.45 am. while travelling in the jeep. Number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the case against all the accused. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara by his impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.1992 acquitted the accused Nos. 2 and 3 by giving benefit of doubt, but convicted the appellant-accused No.1 present appellant, for committing murder of Dineshbhai Amin by firing gun shot, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to ...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Mistry, Since Deceased Through Heirs and Legal Repres Vs. Registr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3488
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred from the judgment denying the relief of stepping up to the original petitioner, who, having passed away during the pendency of the appeal, is represented by his legal representatives, but hereinafter referred for the sake of convenience as 'the original petitioner' or 'the appellant'.2. The simple relevant facts may be recounted in brief to appreciate the interesting legal issue involved in the matter. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Section Writer on 19th March, 1962 and thereafter promoted to the post of Section Officer on 20th April, 1980. Two other Sections Writers, namely, Shri R.R.Shah and Shri D.M.Talwari, were appointed on the post of Section Writer on 1st March, 1962 and 16th March, 1962 respectively. All the three were confirmed in the intermediate promotional post of Assistant on 1st March, 1972. Thereafter, as against the date of promotion to the post of Section Officer of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Habron Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Meenakshiben Anantkuma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj163; (2001)4GLR3330
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. With the consent of the parties, both the appeals are heard together and hereby decided by this common judgment and order.2. The only point involved in these two appeals is as under :(a) Whether looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute of the parties falls under Section 96(1)(b) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as he said Act) or the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the same?3. The short facts in nutshell are as under :The appellant/original plaintiff is a society whereas the respondent No. 1 is / was a member of the appellant society and the respondent No. 2 is the purchaser of plot No. 16 from respondent No. 1 vide registration No. 1982 with the Sub-registrar office -at Anand for a consideration of Rs.2,18,100/-.4. It is the case of the appellant-society that merely by registered document executed between the respondents, the respondent No. 2 does not get any right or interest in the said plot. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Kalubhai Kristi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3066; (2002)1GLR623
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. Appellants have challenged, by filing this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Surat dated 9-3-1995 delivered in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1994. Vide said judgment learned Judge had convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and has sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. He has also convicted both the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 114 of the I.P.C., and has sentenced them to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default further R.I. for two months. Appellant No. 2 is also convicted by the learned Judge for an offenceunder Sections 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. and has sentenced her to suffer R.I. for one month.2. The facts leading to the present prosecution of the appellants stated in nutshell are as under :-2.1. The deceased Bebiben, wife of Ani...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »