Gujarat Court April 2001 Judgments
Champakbhai Amirbhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4475; (2001)4GLR3730
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shaikh for the petitioner and the learned APP Mr. SK Patel for the respondent State. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in criminal misc. application no. 252 of 2001 dated 17th April, 2001. The offence has been registered against the petitioner at CR No. 143 of 1999 under section 406, 409, 461 alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount worth Rs.6,00,000/-. In the FIR, name of the petitioner is there and no other person has been shown as the co accused.2. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh appearing for the petitioner has raised contention before this court that in view of the filing of the offence at CR No. 143 of 1999, the petitioner was arrested by the concerned police authority on 10th February, 2000 and since then, he is in jail. He has submitted that in identical case being CR NO. 114 of 1999, in all, Rs.29,04,750.00 have been alleged to have been ...
Tag this Judgment!ishverlal Vashrambhai Maheria Vs. Rajesh Natvarlal Vyas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3721
D.P. Buch, J.1. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), challenging the judgment and order dated 25.8.2000 recorded by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 17 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court in Atrocity Special Case No. 10/2000 under which the learned Judge acquitted the first respondent from offence punishable under section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the said Act') as well as from the offence punishable under sections 294(Kh) and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code. It appears to be the case of the present petitioner before the trial court as the original informant and complainant, that the present petitioner and contesting respondent no. 1 who was accused in the aforesaid Atrocity Special Case No. 10/2000, were partners in a firm. The petitioner also alleged that the account was not settled and, therefore, there was som...
Tag this Judgment!Harshad V. Shah Vs. Sudarshanbhai R. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3478; (2002)2GLR1040
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar dated 14-2-2001 in the Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2001 under which he has confirmed the order passed by the Second Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar below Exh. 56 in Criminal Case No. 1760 of 1998. Exh. 56 is the application filed by the petitioner who is accused in Criminal Case No. 1760 of 1998 filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This application is purported to be filed under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.2. This petition can only be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts of the case are that on 1-5-1998 the respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is registered as Criminal Case No. 1760 of 1998 in the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Damodardas Shah C/O Rajkamal Provisions Stores Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2415
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These three appeals which raise common questions have been argued together.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 477 of 1997 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26-12-1996 of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3477 of 1996 in which the petitioner had challenged the order of his detention which was made on 19-12-1974 and sought for a declaration that the detention order being void and illegal, no action could be taken against the petitioner and his relatives under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('S.A.F.E.M.A.' for short). A copy of the order dated 19-12-1974 is at Annexure 'B' and a copy of the communication of the grounds of the detention is at Annexure 'C' to the petition.2.1 The petitioner (Kantilal Damodardas Shah) was ordered to be detained pursuant to the detention order dated 19-12-1974 made under Section 5 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preve...
Tag this Judgment!Vahersinh Ramjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4485
H.H. Mehta, J. 1. The original accused of Sessions Case No. 400 of 1993 which was pending on the file of Learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (who will be referred to as the Learned Judge of the trial Court hereinafter for the sake of convenience), has by preferring this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. challenged the legality and validity of the judgement Exh. 41 of conviction and sentence rendered by the Learned Judge of the trial Court, on 4.5.1994 in aforesaid Sessions Case No. 400 of 1993.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal in a nutshell are as follows:-2.1 The complainant Gangaben PW-1 who is the daughter of Kasniben Dahyabhai is residing with her husband in the hut of her mother Kasniben situated in Vadi Vas, Near Shahalam Tolnaka, Ahmedabad. One another daughter of Kasniben named Shantaben is of an unsound mind. According to he prosecution, this Shantaben who is a mentally retarded lady is the victim of rape committed by the present appellant. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Guj)416; [2001]251ITR61(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. In both these appeals the following common substantial question of law has been formulated for consideration at the time of admission of these appeals :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in allowing as deduction, interest on borrowing made for acquisition as capital assets, though pertaining to period prior to the commencement of production, under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act ?'2. The brief facts for appreciating the controversy are : the assessee-company, in which the public are substantially interested, is principally engaged in the business of manufacturing intravenous injection of twotypes--large volumes parenteral, i.e., LVP, and sterile water for injection (small volumes parenteral, i.e., SVP). The company carries on its manufacturing activities at factory situated at village Rajpur, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, a centrally notified backward area. The assessment year is 1992-93 and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(139)ELT503(Guj)
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. These petitions are for review of our order dated 4-4-2001.2. The submission made is that reference has been made to the case of Shivani Engineering Systems and the ratio has been culled from the submissions made in the reply affidavit of the department, it is also submitted that the question of classification of goods particularly plastic goods subjected to duty was not gone into.3. We have already made it clear in our order in SCAs that we are not going into the main question of classification of goods and the value for the purpose of assessment of customs duty. We make it clear that we have only for the purpose of deciding the question of validity of the provisions of the section and the standing orders issued thereunder, gone into for a limited purpose to some aspects of classification.4. We allow the petitioners to raise all contentions on merits raised in the petitions and the review petitions before the competent authority under the Act and it sha...
Tag this Judgment!Group General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Naresh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR100
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. These two matters are proposed to be dispose of by a common order and judgment.2. The prayer in this Civil Application is for vacating the ad-interim order passed in Spl.C.A. No. 9381 of 2000 on 6-9-2000. No counter-affidavit has been filed to this Civil Application. However, since the Spl.C.A. No. 9381 of 2000 has been finally heard, the fate of this Civil Application will depend upon the fate of the Special Civil Application.3. The brief facts giving rise to this Special Civil Application are as follows :4. Before September, 1999, the petitioner was working as Pharmacist on contract basis under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 with the respondent-O.N.G.C. Ltd. Subsequently, the petitioner was converted from contract labour to regular Pharmacist on contractual basis. On 7-9-1999, the respondent issued an advertisement in newspaper 'Gujarat Samachar' for the post of Pharmacist. Since the petitioner was already working as Pharm...
Tag this Judgment!Rpg Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC157(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. By filing this special civil application, the petitioner has challenged issuance of notice December 20, 2000, annexure B to the petition, conveying the petitioner that the Commissioner is seeking to exercise revisional jurisdiction.2. Short facts briefly required to be narrated are as under : The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of pesticides since 1997 at Panoli, District-Bharuch. An application for eligibility certificate was given to the Industries Commissioner as required by the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme (1995-2000). The said application was granted on February 23, 1998 for sales tax incentive. Ad hoc eligibility certificate for Rs. 717 lacs was issued on April 23, 1999. Thereafter, Additional Industries Commissioner issued final eligibility certificate for Rs. 2,300.28 lacs on April 29, 2000.3. In between the petitioner made an application on May 10, 1998 to the Commissioner for determination of disputed questions as provided by Section 62 of the Gujarat Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Bhagwanji Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3424
H.H. Mehta, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Cr.P.C.') filed by the original accused of Criminal Case No. 752 of 1988 tried and decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhachau (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Magistrate for the sake of convenience) by rendering his judgment Ex.29 dated 22nd February, 1991. By preferring this Criminal Revision Application, original accused of said case has challenged the correctness, legality and validity of the judgment Ex.7 dt. 30/7/1992 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Judge) in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1991.2. The present revision petitioner was an accused in Criminal Case No. 572 of 1988 in the trial Court and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1991 which he preferred to the Sessions Court, Bhuj-Kachchh. For the sake of convenience, p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »