Gujarat Court July 2001 Judgments
Hasenara Begam Vs. Fazar Ali
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4312
ORDERB.B. Deb, J.1. By this petition under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner assailed the impugned order dated 31-1-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No. 28(4) 1996 filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 7-8-1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sonamura, West Tripura, in Misc. Case No. 30 of 1995.2. The petitioner being the married wife of the respondent filed a maintenance petition under Section 125, Cr. P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Sonamura, West Tripura in Misc. Case No. 30 of 1995. The husband respondent contested the maintenance petition contending, inter alia, that during the pendency of the case the husband respondent divorced the wife petitioner and, as such, in view of the related provision of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!D.G. Dalal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1011
M.R. Calla, J.1. Through these 16 Special Civil Applications, the petitioners have sought to challenge the allotment of posts made to the concerned respondents or no allotment and the method of allotment or assignment of preference in the Gujarat Civil Services and have sought a direction for allotment afresh or re-allotment on the vacant 'posts and for that purpose, Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services Recruitment (Examination) Rules, 1980 has also been challenged in Special Civil Application Nos. 931 of 1992, 5705 of 1996, and 3590 of 1990 to be ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. It may he mentioned that in Special Civil Application Nos. 3597 of 1990, 5705 of 1996, 1662 of 1989 and 931 of 1992, there is no challenge to the allotment in favour of the concerned respondents, but the petitioners therein have claimed the post of their preference only.3. During the course of hearing of these petitions on 29th June 2001, Mr. P. V. Hathi, learned Counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Tube Suppliers, Ahmedabad Vs. Municipal Corporation of City o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj4
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. The present two Special Civil Applications have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the action of the Authorities of the Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad of inspection, deataining and seizure of goods and books of accounts of the two petitioners concerns and thereupon levy and recovery of octroi duty on such goods has been challenged.2. The petitioners also challenge the constitutional validity of the Octroi rules and the Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act', the rules and the Standing Orders respectively).3. The brief facts in the two cases before us leading to the challenge to the alleged coercive recovery of octroi from the petitioner need to be stated.4. The petitioner, Swastik Steel Suppliers in S.C.A. No. 235 of 1986, is a partnership firm engaged in the business of dealing in iron and steel materials. It is admitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Principal Shri Jivkor Vanita Vishram Vs. Savita Saymon Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ874Guj
Kundan Singh, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.5.88 at Annexure 'A' passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 31st August,1984 annexure 'D' in the review of the aforesaid order passed by the respondent No. 2 and for a declaration that a teacher is not an employee within the definition of Payment of Gratuity Act.2. The petitioner is the Principal of the school run by Shri Jivkor Vanita Vishram which is an educational institution. Thus, the petitioner is the Principal of the educational institution run by the Trust. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant teacher in the primary section on 17.11.1947. She had been made permanent in the year 1949 and she retired from the school on 3rd May, 1982. The respondent No. 1 was getting the pay of Rs. 952/- at the time of retirement. The school is a private school managed by the trust and her pay was in consonance with the rules and regulations framed by the Government in 1978 ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Jitendrakumar Kantilal Vs. District Primary Education Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR444
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Out of these 36 Letters Patent Appeals, 34 Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common orders dated 21st April, 2001 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 13113, 13120, 13115 of 2000. 426, 427, 424 of 2001, 13116 of 2000, 717 of 2001, 13119, 13121, 13117, 13118, 13114, 13034 of 2000, 425 of 2001, 12232, 12416, 12233, 12420, 12415, 12234, 12419, 12486, 12321, 12417, 12418, 12423, 12214, 12424, 13032, 13242, 12489, 12516 and 12641 of 2000 and two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 428 of 2001 and 439 of 2000 are directed against the common order dated I9th April, 2001 whereby the Special Civil Application Nos. 12877 of 2000 and 12853 of 2000 were decided. Whereas alt these Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the common orders as aforesaid and we find that common questions arise for our consideration based on identical facts, we propose to decide all these 36 Letters Patent Appeals by this common judgment and order as under:2. The appellants (original petitioners) ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrasinh Prabhatsinh Vaghela Vs. District Magistrate, Junagadh and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR873
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. B. C. Dave, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. L. Jani, learned A.G.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 so also Ms. Parinda Davawala, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government-respondent No. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order-the detention order dated 23rd February, 2001 which actually effected on 27th February, 2001 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh District under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the P.B.M. Act. The grounds of detention are communicated and supplied to the present petitioner under Section 8(1) of the P.B.M. Act. The present petitioner has been detained in custody of District Jail, Nadiad as Class-II detenu.2. Learned Advocate Mr. B. C. Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised various contentions challenging the detention order but ac...
Tag this Judgment!Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR454(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 in compliance with the direction issued under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,69,218 was not part of the actual cost of the plant ?'The assessment year involved is 1974-75 and the accounting period is the year ended June 30,1973. The assessee-company was incorporated to conduct the business of manufacturing glass lined equipment. During the previous year under consideration, the company carried out only fabrication of the factory and it capitalised expenditure to the tune of Rs. 10,25,050. It appears that this sum also included the amount of expenditure which was incurred in the preceding year, viz., the year ended June 30,1972, and, therefore, for the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajesh P. Rajyaguru
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ209Guj
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The present petition is filed by Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli, in Reference Case No. 309 of 1998 (Amreli) (new) which was Reference Case No. 790 of 1993 (Bhavnagar) (old) dated March 16, 2000 by which the learned Labour Judge was pleased to hold that the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal, unjust and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the same is quashed. The learned Judge was pleased to order the reinstatement of the respondent-workman on his original post with continuity of service with 15% back wages and also cost of Rs. 251. Mr. Munshaw submitted that in the award the Labour Court has recorded in para 7 that the respondent-workman has deposed at Exh. 15. In the earlier part it is deposed that on June 30, 1992 he was removed from the service and that removal was by an oral order that he had worked continuously for one year. In the latter part he depo...
Tag this Judgment!Ajitbhai Ganpatbhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3253
A.L. Dave, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the Judgment and order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1995 on 23rd April, 1996 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that;Lalitaben, wife of Viththalbhai, resident of Vaddala, Taluka Mehmdavad, lodged a first information report before the Senior Police Sub-Inspector of Mehmdavad Police Station on 1st December, 1994 at about 10.00 p.m. alleging that on that evening at about 8.00 p.m., when she was cleaning vessels in the courtyard of her house, the present appellants came there suddenly. Accused, Ajit Ganpat, held her hands; accused Ramesh Mahotbhai Chauhan, held her legs and raised her clothes whereas accused, Rajendra Bhudar, mounted on her and he committed rape. At this time, she started raising shouts but Rajendra Bhudar gagged her mouth with his hands and, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Guj)470
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B has referred the following question for the opinion of this court in compliance with the direction issued under the provisions of section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,69,218 was not the part of the actual cost of the plant ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1974-75 and the accounting period is year ended 30-6-1973. The assessee-company was incorporated to conduct business of manufacturing of glass lined equipments. During the previous year under consideration the company carried out only fabrication of the factory and it capitalised expenditure to the tune of Rs. 10,25,050. It appears that this sum also included the amount of expenditure which was incurred in the preceding year viz., year ended 30-6-1972, and, therefore, for the year under consideration a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »