Gujarat Court August 2001 Judgments
Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Guj)122
D.A. Mehta, J.The applicant- assessee sought reference comprising six questions under sections 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad 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 in 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, carrying on busines...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kader Jusab Sandhi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1212
B.C. Patel, J.1. Original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal against the order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jarnnagar, on 5-8-1996, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1995. By the said order, accused No. 1 was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act' for short) and for an offence punishable under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Accused No. 2 was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The trial Court sentenced accused No. 1 to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five years) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five years) for the offence punishabl...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsana Natvarlal Ramagiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1290
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This appeal is filed by appellant-Jyotsnaben, wife of Natvarlal wherein she has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20-4-1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special Case No. 2 of 1984 whereby accused late Natvarlal was convicted for the offence under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Section 161 I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer 1 year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 1 month S.I.2. On 21-2-1989, Division Bench of this Court admitted the appeal and the sentence of fine imposed by the Special Judge was suspended till final decision of that appeal.3. This is an appeal of 1988. Today, it is listed for the 26th time. Last time i.e., on 30-7-2001 when this matter was listed before this Court it was kept today at the request of learned Counsel Shri Manoj Popat as he wanted to prepare himself on the point of maintainability of this appeal,4. I a...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller Vs. Virajlal G. Pala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ163Guj
ORDERJ.M. Panchal, J. 1. In this appeal which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged legality of judgment dated July 13, 2001 rendered by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6536 of 1988 by which the award dated October 13, 1987 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 539/84 substituting punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to withholding of two increments without any cumulative effect, is upheld.2. The respondent was employed as Conductor. On May 20, 1982, he was on duty on Kodinar-Veraval Route. When the bus reached Kodinar, it was checked by D.T.O. Shri Gohil and his men. During check, some irregularities such as non-issuance of tickets etc. were found. Therefore, the respondent was served with a chargesheet dated June 22, 1982 and a departmental inquiry was conducted against him. At the conclusion of inquiry, the Disciplinary Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsna Natvarlal Ramagiya Vs. State of Guj.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR362
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This appeal is filed by appellant Jyotsnaben, wife of Natvarlal wherein she has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.4.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special Case No.2/84 whereby accused late Natvarlal was convicted for the offence under Section 5(1) r/w.s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500/= in default to further undergo 1 month S.I.2. On 21.2.1989 Division Bench of this court admitted the appeal and the sentence of fine imposed by the Special Judge was suspended till final decision of that appeal.3. This is an appeal of 1988. Today it is listed for the 26th time. Last time i.e. on 30.7.2001 when this matter was listed before this court it was kept today at the request of learned counsel Shri Manoj Popat as he wanted to prepare himself on the point of maintainability of this appeal.4. I am not required to narrate...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ramlubhaiya R. Malhotra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Guj)435
D.A Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the claim of the assessee for depreciation under section 34(2)(ii) specially when the proprietary business was converted into a partnership firm during the relevant accounting period ?'2. The assessment year is 1977-78 and the accounting period is financial year 1976-77. The assessee was running a proprietary business in the name of Standard Rolling Mills and the said business was conducted for the period 1-4-1976 to 30-6-1976, during the financial year with effect from 1-7-1976, the business, with all its assets and liabilities, was taken over by a new firm having the same business name. The assessees share in this partnership firm was 40 per cent. The assessee claimed depreciation and investment allowance as deduction against the profits from the proprietary business, which was carried on during the part of t...
Tag this Judgment!Nasirkhan Nivaskhan Pathan Vs. District Development Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj143; (2001)3GLR2213
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether, the holder of the public office by election can be suspended for any pending criminal proceedings, which were initiatedprior to election and was not a disqualification for being elected to the office, is the heart and substratum of this referential consideration and adjudication emanated out of the order dated March 21, 1996 by the learned single Judge (Coram ; Rajesh Balia, J.), in Special Civil Application No. 10979 of 1995, in whose opinion, in view of the divergent views and discordant opinions between two orders of this Court and since the matter is of general public importance, it was directed to be placed for constituting a Larger Bench, and that is the reason why the Hon'ble Chief Justice has constituted this Larger Bench for the resolution of the aforesaid question.2. In course of hearing of Special Civil Application No. 10979 of 1995 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, rival contentions were raised on behalf of the petitioner. Reliance was p...
Tag this Judgment!Megha Naranbhai Harijan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3412
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. Tirmizi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned A.P.P. for respondents.2. Both the present matters are pertaining to the petitioner-Megha Naranbhai Harijan who has been Ordered to be externed vide Order dated 24-2-2000 passed by the externing authority which Order was confirmed by the appellate authority vide Order dated 17th July, 2000.3. In Special Cri. Application No. 539 of 2001, the petitioner extreme has challenged the impugned Order of internment dated 24-2-2000 as confirmed by the appellate authority vide Order dated 17th July, 2001.4. In Special Cri. Application No. 552 of 2001, the petitioner extreme has challenged the impugned Order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palitana Under Section 62(1)(2) of the Bombay Police Act dated 20th April, 2000 which has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palitana on the ground that the petitioner-extreme has committed breach of the conditions of the Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhabhai Keshavlal Patel Vs. Election Officer, Dist. Central Co-op. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR552
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Bhikhabhai Keshavlal Patel-petitioner has filed this petition praying for a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 24-7-2001 passed by the Election Officer-respondent No. 1 for the election of Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). By the said order, the Election Officer has rejected the Nomination Form of the petitioner to be elected in the Director of the Bank for which election was to be held on 10-8-2001.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-2.1(a) It has been contended that there is no dispute about the fact that Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.-respondent No. 5 is a specified society falling within the purview of the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Co-operative Societies Act providing for elections of Committees and Officers of certain societies. The said Chapter applies to the soc...
Tag this Judgment!insafi Kamdar Mandal Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR740
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner, a Trade Union, has filed this petition under Artcles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order and decision dated 3-11-1999 of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nadiad whereby the dispute raised by the petitioner is not admitted in conciliation. The petitioner has also sought a direction directing the government to refer the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to, for short, as 'the Act').2. According to the petition, the workmen concerned had raised demands and disputes regarding service conditions before the respondent No. 2-employer-company through another Union. The dispute took a bitter turn resulting into go-slow and threats of strike and lock-out. It is alleged that the employer, with the consent and connivance of the other Union representing the workmen at that time, prepared a settlement, and without the terms and conditions of such settlement being explained to the workmen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »