Gujarat Court August 2001 Judgments
Hajibhai Jamadibhai Saiyed Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR672
ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 38 of the Act, I, Rajkumar, (I.A.S.), Collector, Bhavnagar District, Bhavnagar, disqualify Pravinbhai M. Gadhavi from the councillorship of the present Board of Palitana Municipality as he has incurred disqualification as per the above discussion. I also hereby declare the general seat to Ward No. 8 as having fallen vacant.' 5. The learned Joint District Judge held that since disqualification order passed by the Collector on 14-6-1999 provided for disqualification of respondentNo. 4 from 'the present Board' i.e. the Board which then existed on 14-6-1999, there was no disqualification for contesting for elections to the next general board which was to come into existence after 10-1-2000. 6. At the hearing of these petitions, Mr. D. D. Vyas and Mr. Dhaval C. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Joint District Judge on the following grounds :- (i) In view of...
Tag this Judgment!Rafidbhai Mogal Vs. Jagdishbhai Govindbhai Dharajia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj17
M.R. Calla, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 26-6-2000 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the Special Civil Application No. 5212/2000 filed by Amreli Municipality and its Incharge President was dismissed and Special Civil Application No. 5276/2000 filed by the candidate, who according to the proceedings of the meeting drawn by Assistant Collector, secured majority votes, is entitled to be declared as elected, was allowed and the rule was made absolute.2. Whereas both the Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the same impugned common order dated 26-6-2000 and common questions are involved based on identical facts relating to same dispute, we propose to decide both these Appeals by this common judgment and order.3. It is the inflight of the political parties, which has given rise to this litigation -- which is essentially a political issue which has come to the Court in the form of an issue with legal questions raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Dilavar Rustamkhan Vs. Naynaben Vanmalidas Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2722
M.R. Calla, J. 1. This First Appeal (by the original defendant No. 3 in the civil suit) is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar in Special Civil Case No. 124 of 1990 on 22-12-1999. The original-plaintiffs Naynaben Vanmalidas aged 22 years and Sagirbabi Dilavarbhai i.e., minor daughter of the plaintiff No. 1 filed a suit for damages and compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 65,000/- with 12% interest. The suit was filed on 18-8-1990 and the State of Gujarat, Social Welfare Officer and Dilavar Rustamkhan were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. 2. The case of the plaintiff No. 1 was that she was living with her widowed mother Champaben Vanmalidas and was doing the household work. Her father Vanmalidas had expired six years ago and her mother Champaben was doing the work of 'Hamaal' at the Railway Station. It appears that the State of Gujarat and the Social Welfare Officer were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nanalal Mansukhram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR50(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'C' has referred the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue:'(i) Whether, the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal that the disallowance of interest paid on the amounts received from parties other than partners of the firm under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified and hence the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not be sustained ?(ii) Whether, when both the authorities below had examined all the detailed facts and found that the moneys claimed to have been received for the purpose of the charity were in fact utilised by the firm, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in interfering with the decision of the lower authorities and directing the deletion of the interest disallowed and added to the income of the assessee ?'2. The assessment years involved are 19...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Textiles Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj247
ORDERR.N. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates.2. The petitioner is an industrial undertaking which claims exemption from the electricity duty levied under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). The authorities below have rejected the claim made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a 'new industrial undertaking' as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act.3. Mr. Joshi has submitted that under Section 3 of the Act, a new industrial undertaking has been exempted from payment of electricity duty. The words, a new industrial undertaking' have been defined in Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 to mean, inter alia, an industrial undertaking which is not formed by transfer to a new business or undertaking of a building, machinery or plant previously used in the State for any industrial purpose, of such value in relation to total investments, as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazet...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd. (Now Mafatlal Gagal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR528(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference two questions are referred for our decision at the instance of the Revenue and five questions are referred at the instance of the assessee. All the questions pertain to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. We take up the questions ad seriatim :The following question is referred at the instance of the Revenue : '(1) Whether, the payments on account of medial insurance and accident insurance premium were liable to be included while calculating the disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Act ?' 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the question referred is concluded in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT v. Cama Motors P. Ltd. : [1998]234ITR699(Guj) . We accordingly answer the question in the negative, i.e, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.The following question is also referred at the instance of the Revenue :'(2) Whether, a sum of Rs. 46,610 paid to Mettur Beardsell Ltd. was allowable as a deduction ?'3. Learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR596(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. We have heard Mr. B. B. Naik, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Manish J. Shah for Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel for the assessee.2. In this reference, two questions are referred at the instance of the Revenue and one question is referred at the instance of the assessee.3. The first question referred at the instance of the Revenue is in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. The question is as under :'Whether the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244(1A) in respect of interest payments under sections 215, 217 and 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that the controversy raised herein is concluded in favour of the assessee as per the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd. : [1998]233ITR370(Mad) , the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sardar Balwant Singh Gujral and the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Ambat Echukutty Menon : [1988]173ITR581(Ke...
Tag this Judgment!Kanti Cotton Mills Vs. Khodaji Gagjibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ595Guj
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. Kanti Cotton Mill - the then unit of Gujarat State Textile Corporation, Surendranagar, has filed this petition challenging the judgment and award dated November 24, 1987, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Appeal No. 51 of 1987. By the impugned judgment and award, the Appellate Authority has held and directed the petitioner-mill to pay to the respondent workman Shri Khodaji Gagjibhai who is entitled to Rs. 2344.00 difference amount of gratuity of 80 days salary.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:Shri Khodaji Gagjibhai, the respondent workman was employed with the then Kanti Cotton Mill somewhere from February 22, 1942. He has retired from the Mill company on May 22, 1984 on reaching his age of superannuation. On that day the mill company paid an amount of Rs. 15,490.00 by way of gratuity.As per the contention of the respondent, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Ap...
Tag this Judgment!i.M. Patel and ors. Vs. Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ826Guj
ORDER1. The present petition is filed challenging the memorandum of agreement arrived at between the representative union, that is, respondent No. 7, and ONGC under Section 18(1) read with Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 58(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The grievance is that the petitioners, who were serving as Assistants, Grade-Ill, with the ONGC and were thereafter, promoted to the post of Assistants, Grade-II, with effect from various dates and then, came to be promoted to the post of Assistants, Grade-I, from different dates, are getting less pay. The contention raised by the petitioner is that other set of employees under the aforesaid agreement were given allowance to their basic pay and thus, they are getting higher pay than the present petitioners though the present petitioners are senior to these employees.2. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 wherein contentions raised by the petitioners are r...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Guj)344
M.S. SHAH, J.In this reference two questions are referred for our decision at the instance of the revenue and five questions are referred at the instance of the assessee. All the questions pertain to assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. We take up the questions ad seriatum :2. The following question is referred at the instance of the revenue :(i) 'Whether, the payments on account of medical insurance and accident insurance premium were liable to be included while calculating the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Act ?'Learned counsel for the parties agree that the question referred is concluded in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT v. Cama Motors (P) Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 699 (Guj). We accordingly answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.3. The following question is also referred at the instance of the revenue :(2) 'Whether, a sum of Rs. 46,610 paid to M/s Mettur Heardshell Ltd. was allowable as a deduction ?'Learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »