Gujarat Court August 2001 Judgments
Veljiben @ Gagaben Wd/O Balsinh Gamjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC95
M.S. Shah, J.1. Leave to delete respondent No. 2 - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra.Rule. Mr. P.R. Abichandani, learned AGP for the State of Gujarat and Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Registrar of this Court on the administrative side waive service of Rule.2. The four petitioners herein are widows of unfortunate victims of four different motor vehicle accidents which took place in Panchmahals District. The petitioners have filed Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 494/88, 412/90, 1473/92 and 382/94 respectively. All the four claim petitions are filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra.3. The grievance in this petition is that the petitioners' claim petitions have not been heard and decided so far because their claim petitions are listed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Main Tribunal') which is presided over by the learned District Judge of Panchmahals District; since ...
Tag this Judgment!Chintan N. Parikh and Vatsal N. Parikh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)386; [2002]253ITR564(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has raised the following identically worded question of law for the opinion of this court in both the aforesaid references :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assesses was liable to be taxed on capital gains on account of sale of his interest arising under the trust deed dated May 16, 1960, on the death of his mother, Shakuntalaben ?'2. As the facts and controversy are common we heard both the references together and dispose of by this common judgment. We have taken the facts from the Income-tax Reference No. 185 of 1986 wherein the assessee was represented by the learned advocate, Shri J.P. Shah. Mr. K.H. Kaji, appearing for the assessee, in Income-tax Reference No. 95 of 1987 has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. J.P. Shah. Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue has appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax i...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Choksi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)396; [2001]252ITR863(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ''B', has referred the following question under Section 256(1) 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 assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a firm of chartered accountants having its offices at Ahmedabad, Petlad and Nadiad. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year ending on March 31, 1984. The assessee made a claim in respect of initial depreciation under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act on the cost of building erected during the year at Petlad. The said claim was negatived by the Income-tax Officer as according to him the said provision was meant to apply only in the case of assessees who carried on business and not in the case of assessees who are involved in 'profession'. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute Vs. Sanjay Chandrakant Vyas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR256]
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Institute has challenged the award of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCIDAT) No.248 of 1997 whereby the respondent-workman is ordered to be reinstated with full backwages with costs quantified at Rs.750/-. After the said impugned award was published on 6.8.1999 and the petition was filed and admitted with the grant of ad-interim relief on 13.3.2000, the order of ad-interim stay against operation of the award was modified by the Court (Coram: H.K.Rathod, J.) by ordering the petitioner to pay full current wages with arrears with effect from 9.6.1999 upon receipt of an affidavit from the respondent stating that he was unemployed. The respondent was ordered to file such affidavit in compliance with the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the `I.D.Act' for short). Thereafter, in an application seeking clarification of the order, the above order was modified to t...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Choksi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN109(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B has referred the following question under section 256(1) 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 assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 32(1)(iv) of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants having its offices at Ahmedabad, Petlad and Nadiad. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is financial year ending on 31-3-1984. The assessee made a claim in respect of initial depreciation under section 32(1)(iv) on the cost of building erected during the year at Petlad. The said claim was negative by the Income Tax Officer as according to him the said provision was meant to apply only in case of the assessee who carried on business and not in the case of assessees who are involved in profession. The assessee challenged the assessment or...
Tag this Judgment!Aniruddhsinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR594
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. H. L. Jani, learned A.P.P., on behalf of the respondents. Rule. Mr. A.D. Oza, learned P.P., waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.Before passing the order in the present matter, it is necessary to note the relevant observations made by the Apex Court in case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1579, the relevant observations are quoted as under :-[D] Constitution of India, Articles 19, 32, 226 - Prison excesses- Rights of Prisoner and Duties of the Court.Where the rights of a prisoner either under the Constitution or under other law, are violated the writ power of the Court can and should run to his rescue. There is a warrant for this vigil. The Court process casts the convict into the prison system and the deprivation of his freedom is not a blind penitentiary affliction but a belighted instituti...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Jethabhai Parmar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj23; (2002)1GLR880
K.R. Vyas, J.1. Since a common question of law, namely whether the residents/Gram Panchayat are required to be heard while reconstituting or abolishing talukas or shifting one village from one taluka to another taluka, arises in these appeals, both these Letters Patent Appeals are required to be heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 699 of 2000 arises out of the judgment and order dated 20-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 14 of 2000. The said writ petition was filed by ten members of Kahoda Gram Panchayat and one resident of Kahoda, challenging the Government notification dated 31-12-1999 shifting village Kahoda from Sidhpur taluka of Patan District and placing it in Unjha taluka of Mehsana District.3. It may be stated that prior to reconstitution of the districts and talukas in October, 1997, Kahoda was in Sidhpur taluka of Mehsana District. Mehsana District was bifurcated into Mehsana District and Patan D...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinkumar Chandrakant Vyas and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2755
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. In the S.C.A. and L.P.A., common question of general importance raised by the petitioners is on the constitutional and legal validity of the circulars No. RB/618/476/1999 styled as Standing Order No. 28 dated 20-2-1999 and No. RB/618/1433/2001, dated 25-5-2001 of the Police Commissioner, Rajkot city to all his subordinate police officers.2. We shall deal with and reproduce the contents of the two impugned circulars hereinafter. The two circulars in substance direct the subordinate police officers to make necessary investigation of the case of arrestees in any bailable offence and for that purpose interrogate them, take their finger prints, identification marks and photographs. He has advised the police officers not to forthwith release the accused on bail in bailable offences without making necessary preliminary investigation and for that purpose, if necessary, they may obtain remand from the Magistrate. One of the circulars also directs that if in a case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR577(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The applicant-assessee sought a reference comprising six questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmeda-bad Bench 'B', has raised and referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 2,05,509 incurred on office building was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 29,392 incurred on borewell was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 1981. The assessee-company is a private limited company, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Ishwarbhai Keshavbhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR159
J.R. Vora, J.1. Appeal From Order No. 291 of 2000 has been filed by the present appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27th of July, 2000 rejecting the appellant's application Exh. 5 for temporary injunction in Spl. Civil Suit No. 184 of 1999 by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Surai. Present appellants were the plaintiffs and suit was filed for specific performance of the contract and for declaration and for the permanent injunction. While Appeal From Order No. 292 of 2000 is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st of July, 2000 rejecting the Appellants application Exh. 5 for temporary injunction in Spl. Civil Suit No. 183 of 1999 by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), at Surat. The said suit also was filed for declaration and injunction and for the specific performance of the contract. In both the Appeals From Orders, present appellants were the plaintiffs and present respondents were the defendants in the abovesaid suit. In Spl. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »