Gujarat Court March 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.
H. K. Dhruva Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR847
ORDER 2 RULE 25.2 Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:'Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.' 'Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.'5.3 The applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1977 S.C. 1466. In Para 25 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:'The contention of Madhya Pradesh cannot be accepted. The plaintiff will be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure only when he omits to sue for or relinquishes the claim in a suit with knowledge that ...
Ashutosh Prafulbhai Nanavati Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR825(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. In this appeal, which is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appellant has claimed that six substantial questions of law as suggested in para. 20 of the memo of appeal arise for consideration of the court. However, after hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that only one substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is, therefore, ordered to be admitted and the following question of law is formulated for consideration of the court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has substantially erred in law in deciding I, T. A. No. 1374/Ahd of 1992 filed by the appellant when the appellant's advocate could, not remain present under the impression that, hearing of the appeal would be adjourned as was repeatedly adjourned on the ground that the Bombay High Court had not decided special civil application filed by Shri Mrugesh Jaykrishna ?'2. Mr. M. R....
Vinayakrao S. Desai Vs. Interlink Petroleum Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2649
Kundan Singh, J.1. This is an application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, by the applicant-original respondent No. 1 for vacating the ex pane ad-interim order dated 16-12-1999 granted in the petition.2. It is stated that the above Special Civil Application was filed in this Court and this Court passed the following order :'Rule. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 18-1-2000. Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 8(C) till then. Sd/- Date : 16-12-1999 A. M. Kapadia, Judge.' This application has been moved on the following main amongst other grounds as mentioned in Para-2 of the application.(1) There is no pleading, documentary evidence and affidavit-in-support of an urgency at all for an ad-interim relief in the petition. (2) A claim to an ad-interim relief in Para 8(C) of the petition is without a cause of action alleged, evidence and duly proved especially therefor on the face of the petition anywhere. (3) An otherwise please 'as the matter is urgent one' a...
Ashutosh Prafulbhai Nanavati Vs. Asstt. Cit and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Guj)497
J.M. Panchal, J. In this appeal, which is filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the appellant has claimed that six substantial questions of law as suggested in para 20 of the memo of appeal arise for consideration of the court. However, after hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that, only one substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is, therefore, ordered to be admitted and following question of law is formulated for consideration of the court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B has substantially erred in law in deciding ITA No. 1374/Ahd/92 filed by the appellant when the appellants advocate could not remain present under the impression that, hearing of the appeal would be adjourned as was repeatedly adjourned on the ground that the Bombay High Court had not decided Special Civil Application filed by Shri Mrugesh Jaykrishna.'2. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned counsel waives service of notice ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›