Gujarat Court December 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.
Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank Vs. A. Rajiv, CaptaIn Registrar, Sainik Sc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR649]; (2002)2GLR1072
C.K. Buch, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Counsel Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the respondents.2. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. R. Nanavali for learned Counsel Mr. A. R. Thacker for the petitioner and learned Counsel Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa/for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the respondents. By consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing today -3. The petitioner is an Accountant serving with Sainik School, Balachhadi of Jamnagar district and he has been transferred to Sainik School situated at Kunjpura-Karnal in the State of Haryana. It is contended that impugned order of transfer is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is issued contrary to the contract of service and in violation of rules applicable to the employees serving in Sainik School. Malice is also alleged by the petitioner. It is contended that with a view to take revenge against the petitioner as he has agitated the dispute in the servic...
Bhagubhai F. Soni Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1328
H.K. Rathod, J.1. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M.S. Grewal and Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood and Ors,, reported in 2001 (8) SCC 151 are relevant and material in light of the facts of the present case. The said observations, are therefore, reproduced as under :'27. The decision of this Court in D.K. Basu v. Stale of W. B., 1997 (2) GLR 1631 (SC) ; 1997 (1) SCC 416 comes next. This decision has opened up a new vista in the jurisprudence of the country. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits stands extended since Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) in no uncertain terms observed (SCC 439 Para 45) : 'The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace t...
Orpat Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Guj)534; [2002]256ITR690(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner, a public charitable trust, has challenged the order dated April 16, 2001, passed under Section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, i.e., the respondent.2. The petitioner had approached the respondent seeking renewal of certificate under Section 80G(5) of the Act in view of the fact that the petitioner had already been certified to be a charitable trust right from June 10, 1993, till March 31, 2000. It is undisputed position that the petitioner-trust has fulfilled all other requirements as stipulated under the provisions of the Act for being entitled to certificate under Section 80G of the Act.3. The respondent by his order dated February 23, 2001 (exhibit B) refused to grant approval under Section 80G(5) for the financial year April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, because according to the respondent, the petitioner-trust had acted in contravention of Section 11(5) of th...
Wine Shop Through Partner Kalindi P. Malhotra Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3071
Kundan Singh, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside the impugned show-cause notice and the impugned order dated 11-9-2001 Annexure-N to this petition passed by the respondent No. 2 and for a direction not to take out any proceedings or refuse to renew the licences on the sole ground of any misrepresentation.2. The petitioner is holding the licences issued by the licensing authority under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short 'the act') and Bombay Prohibition Rules, 1953. The licence form F.L.-II was issued on 24-2-1981, and thereafter, another licence F.L.-I was issued on 21-1-1882 by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Vadodara and the said licences have been renewed from time to time and still the petitioner is holding the same. On 29-6-1988 the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Vadodara issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that the licence has been obtained from the licensing authority by mis...
Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for...
O.N.G.C. Mazdoor Sangh Vs. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1295
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner-Union, hasprayed for necessary direction against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for carrying out the verification of the members of the Unions for the purpose of determining the membership of the concerned Unions. The petitioner has also prayed thatthe Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), respondent No. 6 herein, be directed to conduct fresh verification process through secret ballot for verifying the membership of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 Unions.2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of theTrade Unions Act. As per the averments made in Paragraph 1 of the petition,the members of the petitioner-Union are spread over the entire region, i.e.Ankleshwar, Vadodara, Khambhat, Ahmedabad and Mehsana and that the strengthof the workers in Ahmedabad is 1500 and out of that, 1000 workers are themembers of the petitioner-Union. It is also further averred in the said petitionthat in Ankleshwar, there a...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhushan Processors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2003(153)ELT524(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Mr. D.N. Patel, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the Central Government appearsand is heard. The applicant desires that the Court should direct Customs Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to refer the question proposed by the applicant in para 8 of the application. Taking into considerationthe (submissions made by the learned Counsel, the provision of Section11(AC) of the Central Excise Act and the concurrent orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad and the CEGAT,West Regional Bench, we do not find any infirmity with the reasoningadopted by the authorities. They have applied the ratio of the judgment ofthe Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33], wherein while interpreting the same phraseoccurring in Section 7(5) of Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Legislation, it hasbeen laid down by the Apex Court that the phraseology used in the p...
Anand Municipality and anr. Vs. Navjeevan Pulse Mills and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj192; (2001)4GLR3226
R. K. Abichandani, J. 1. The appellants challenge the Interim relief granted in terms of paragraph 12(B) of the petition filed by the respondents which reads as follows :'Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or stay order against the concerned respondents from taking possession of the land mentioned in the notice dated 2-5-2000 or taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of the said notice Annexure 'H', Annexure 'I' and Annexure 'EE'.'2. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the declaration sought in paragraph 12(AA) of the petition to the effect that the preliminary and final scheme as sanctioned by the State Government in relation to final plot No. 131(85) were ultra vires, bad in law and unenforceable and that the proceedings adopted by the Town Planning Officer were without jurisdiction and contrary to the princip...
Annapurna Udyog Bhandar and anr. Vs. Nasik Hing Supplying Co. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR456
Sharad D. Dave, J. 1. Being aggrieved by order dated 28-9-2001 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 5 below Exh. 55 filed by original defendants/present respondents in Civil Suit No. 5115 of 1993, the appellants/ original plaintiffs have appeared before this Court by way of this Appeal From Order under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule l(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this litigation have been referred to as they have been arrayed by the trial Court. The appellants/ plaintiffs prayed in this Appeal from order to quash and set aside the order dated 28-9-2001 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 5 below Exh. 55 and further prayed to grant interim injunction against the use of impugned Annapurna trade mark for the State of Gujarat. 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the present Appeal from Order is disposed of finally. 3. The facts giving rise to the litigation, as stated by the plaintiffs in this a...
G S R T Corpn. Vs. Manibhai Ranjitbhai Makwana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1096]; (2001)4GLR3420
M.S. Shah, J.1. These are cross petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the judgment and award dated 2-8-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1070 of 1996 by which the Labour Court set aside the penalty of dismissal passed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against Manibhai Ranjitbhai Makwana (hereinafter referred to as `the workman') who was working as Fitter Helper under the Corporation and substituted the same by penalty of simple discharge with a further direction that over and above the gratuity and provident fund, the Corporation shall also pay the workman Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.2. The workman was employed by the Corporation on the post of Fitter Helper. A departmental inquiry was held against the workman on the charge that the workman had with an intent to commit theft, hidden three angles of the Corporation worth Rs.300/- at another place. Ultimately, the workman came to be dismissed by the order dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »