Gujarat Court July 2001 Judgments
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. the Wellcome Foundation Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC580(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd-original applicant-appellant-petitioners herein have filed this appeal against the judgment and order, dated 19.8.94 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks the respondent No. 2 herein wherein he has allowed the opposition No. AMD 425 filed by Wellcome Foundation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the opponent No.1') and application No. 483813 in class 5 of Fourth Schedule of the Act is ordered to be refused for registration under the provisions of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. FACTS:2.1 The appellants are company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and carrying on business at Ahmedabad.2.2 The appellants filed application on 1.5.1988 and applied for registration ofTrade Mark 'TROVIREX' vide application No. 433813 in class 5 of Fourth Schedule of the Act in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The aforesaid application was accepted for registrati...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Matwani Vs. Kandla Port Trust and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1047
Kundan Singh, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 7-11-1986, 12/13th March, 1987 and 21st November, 1986 passed by the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk by the Secretary to the Development Commissioner, Kandla Port Project. The Kandla Port Project was previously under Ministry of Transport and then Kandla Port Project was converted into Kandla Port Trust and that Trust was taken over by the Central Government by an order dated 29-2-1964 on coming into force of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The service conditions of the employees were to be governed by the Central Government rules, but later on regulations were framed by the Central Government and those conditions were made applicable to the employees of the Trust. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant by the Chief Mechanical Engineer in the month of December, 1975. The Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Trust passed the order retiring the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Rituraj Talkies Vs. Mamlatdar-cum-prescribed Officer, Dhranghadra and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj94; (2001)4GLR3121
ORDERM.S. Shah, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner running a Cinema in Dhangadhra Town of Surendranagar District has challenged the order dated 2-12-1995 (Annexure-F) passed by the Commissioner of Entertainment Tax, Gujarat State confirming the order dated 6-5-1995 (Annexure-D) passed by the Collector, Surendranagar under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977 and also consequential demand notices at Annexures-H & I requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,89,856/-.2. The petitioner was running a cinema at Dhrangadra. The petitioner had exercised the option for payment of consolidated entertainment tax under Section 6 of the Act vide application dated 30-12-1993. That application was granted by the Designated Officer by order dated 5-1-1994 (Annexure-B) on the basis that the houseful capacity was 712 seats in one show. Subsequently, by order dated 4-5-1994 (Annexure-C) the Designated Officer determined the lump sum entertainment tax at Rs. 9082/-...
Tag this Judgment!Commerzbank Ag. and anr. Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas539(Guj); (2002)2GLR1182
C.K. Buch, J.1. The applicants have taken out this Judge's summons for the relief that the order passed by this Court in Company Application No. 160 of 2001 dated 13-6-2001 needs to be recalled. Rest of the reliefs as prayed for by the applicants are ancillary. In the affidavit in support of this Judge's summons filed by Mr. A. Sekar, Power of Attorney holder of Singapore Branch of applicant No. 1-Bank, he has raised various contentions in support of the say that the order requires to be recalled otherwise the applicant Banks being a lender in foreign currency are likely to be prejudiced with the proceedings and the out-come. It is contended and submitted that some of the transactions of opponent Arvind Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'A.M.L.' for short) have rendered A.M.L., inviable and under the strategy, A.M.L. got issued the notification under the Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.R.U. Act' for short ) and A.M.L. und...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dayal B. Mistry
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR571(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction of Rs. 5,000 to the assessee under , even though no payment was made by the assessee ?'2. The learned advocate Shri Bharat Naik has appeared for the applicant, whereas nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee, though the respondent has been served.3. Looking to the facts of the case it is clear that the assessee had incurred liability to the extent of Rs. 5,000, but the said amount of Rs. 5,000 was not paid during the relevant previous year. The assessee had claimed deduction of the said amount under the provisions of Section 80W of the Act. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the deduct...
Tag this Judgment!Chavda Jagmal Bhai Malabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj48
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. The order in this Appeal shall also decide the connected Public Interest Litigation, being Special Civil Application No. 12475 of 2000, in which similar relief has been claimed by the petitioners, as claimed by the appellants in the Appeal arising from Special Civil Application No. 8286 of 2000.2. The Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11-12-2000, whereby the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the impugned Notification styled as Corrigendum dated 20-7-2000 (Exh. B to the Petition) to the Notification of the State Government dated 21-12-1994 (Exh. A to the Petition) has been dismissed.3. The following facts would explain the grounds of challenge to the impugned Notification, described as Corrigendum (Exh. B to the Petition) dated 20-7-2000, issued by the Government of Gujarat in its Department of Urban Development and Urban Housing.4. The Zalavad Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Society Limited (resp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shreyas Land Development Corpn.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)607
ORDERAssessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144BCatch Note:The assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B could be revised by the Commissioner under section 263.Ratio:The assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B could be revised by the Commissioner under section 263.Case Law Analysis:CIT v. East Coast Marine Products (P) Ltd. & Anr. (1990) 181 ITR 314 (AP) concurred with.Application:Section 144B omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from 1-4-1989Decision:In favour of revenue.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim @ Ibu Kalumiya Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR690
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge passed on 13.11.2000 whereby he has rejected the application of accused Nos.4 & 5 for being discharged of the offences u/s. 302 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.2. Shri M.M.Tirmizi, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri H.H.Patel, learned A.P.P. have been heard.3. It may be mentioned that applications of accused Nos.4 & 5 for discharge u/s. 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected, but the instant revision has been filed only by Ibrahimbhai @ Ibu Kalumiya Mansuri, who is said to be accused No. 5, before the trial Judge. As such the case of accused No. 4 for discharge is not being considered nor this order shall apply either in favour or against the accused No. 4.4. Several objections have been taken by the learned A.P.P. regarding jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in such matters and also in what manner the impugned order should be examined and disturbed.5. Le...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Builders Vs. Union of India, Owning and Mining, W.R.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2467
M.R. Calla, J. 1. All these four petitions are identical on facts and involve the same questions and except the change of date of 21st December, 1998 instead of 14th July, 1998 in I.A.P.P. No. 14 of 2001, there is no difference. Therefore, I propose to decide all these four petitions by this common order as under by referring to the facts in detail from I.A.P.P. No. 10 of 2001. 2. The petitioner has come with the case that the petitioner's tender for the work of supply of machine crushed stone ballast in tracks along with Railway track and in Station Yard from 663 kms. to 681 kms. between Railway Stations Umardashi to Chhapi in connection with Phulera-Marwar-Ahmedabad Gauge conversion project was accepted by the Chief Project Manager (Construction), Western Railway, Ahmedabad by his letter dated 19th December, 1994. This work was to be completed on or before 16th September, 1995. However, this work was delayed. The petitioner alleges that it was delayed because of the fault of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasinh @ Chandubha Lalubha Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2003Guj346; (2002)2GLR960
ORDER ::[A] Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 1990 of the appellant - original accused No. 2 - Chandrasinh @ Chandubha Lalubha is dismissed.[B] (i) Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 1990 filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent No. 1 - original accused No. 1 - Ajitsinh Andubha and the respondent No. 2 - original accused No. 3 Bharatsinh Andubha is allowed and they are convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.100=00, in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.(ii) The original accused No. 1 - Ajitsinh Andubha and original accused No. 3 Bharatsinh Andubha are also convicted for the offence under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100=00, in default of payment of which to suffer rigoro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »