Gujarat Court August 2001 Judgments
Dr. Ashima J. Shah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj88; [2002]111CompCas780(Guj); (2001)4GLR3112; [2003]42SCL141(Guj)
ORDERK.M. Mehta, J. 1. Dr. Ashima J. Shah, petitioner has filed this petition praying for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding and declaring the action of the respondent refusing to return the balance amount lying in National Savings Scheme Account No. 101071 of the petitioner to her and refusing to close the same as being arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :--2.1 That on 30-3-1988 the petitioner opened on account bearing No. 101071 with the Ellisbride Post Office, Ahmedabad under National Savings Scheme , 1987 through her father as the holder of a General Power of Attorney dated 25-7-86. It has been further submitted today the petitioner requested the respondents for closing the account and returning the balance amount to her and also addressed Innumerable letters and representations, the respondents are refusing to return the balance amount to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Rambhai L. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR846(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to us under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', Ahmedabad, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest earned by the assessee was exempt under Section 10(4A) ?'2. The applicant-assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the status under the Act is 'resident, but not ordinarily resident'. The assessment years involved in this reference are 1977-78 and 1978-79 and the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1977, and March 31, 1978, respectively.3. The applicant-assessee opened an account with the Central Bank of India which was a fixed deposit account and the same was treated as 'Nonresident (External) Account' as per the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The status of the assessee under the Act was 'nonresi...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Ganpatlal Prajapati Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1324
H.K. Rathod 1. Heard Mr. H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H.L.Jani, learned AGP on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. P.J. Dawawala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.2. In the present petition, the order of detention dated 11th May, 2001 is challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 3[2] of the PBM Act. The present petitioner has been detained at Bharuch Jail as Class II detenu. The grounds of the detention are communicated and supplied to the petitioner as provided under Section 8[1] of the Act. The respondent - State has filed affidavit in reply and the detaining authority has also filed and the the respondent No. 4 has also filed two affidavit in reply dated 22nd June, 2001 and the second affidavit is without date. Learned advocate Mr. H.R.Prajapati has challenged the detention...
Tag this Judgment!insafi Kamdar Mandal Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Labour and Consiliation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR744]
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner, a trade union, has filed this petition under Articles 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 workm...
Tag this Judgment!Nicosulf Industries and Exports Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujara ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1580
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. A complaint under Sections 24, 25, 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was filed by ,the Assistant Environmental Engineer on behalf of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board against a private limited company M/s. Nicosulf Industries & Exports Pvt. Ltd. and its co-directors Kishanbhai M. Narsinh, Mihirbhai G. Virji and Dushyant P. Lejawala, alleging intqr alia that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are producing Nicotine Sulphate in their factory and using Tobacco Stuff, Lime, Kerosene and Sulphuric Acid as rawmaterial, and during the course of process of production they are discharging 10,800 litres of polluted water every day. Under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, every industry is compulsory required to obtain prior permission or approval of the Board for discharging its polluted water used by it either within or outside the industry as per Section 25(1) of the Act. Permission was granted by imposing certain conditions to the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Sayajirao University Vs. Ram Mangaram Mirchandani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR861
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The present Special Civil Application is filed by the petitioner-University challenging the order passed by the Gujarat Services Tribunal in Application No. 98 of 1993 dated 28th December, 1999.The respondent approached the Tribunal by way of the aforesaid application, challenging the decision of the University by which his services were put to an end.2. The respondent applied for the post of Lecturer in Archaeology in response to the advertisement which was published in the daily newspaper. The respondent was interviewed by the Interview Committee and was appointed on probation for a period of two years on the post of Lecturer of Archaeology.It is the case of the original applicant before the Tribunal that after appointment, he secured Ph. D. in Archaeology subject. It is also his case that he was also teaching Sindhi subject in the Arts Faculty, and accordingly, he was discharging additional work. It is further the say of the applicant that he was also appointed a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Anmol Dairy Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3005
C.K. Buch, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel Mrs. Soparkar for the petitioner companies, the Official Liquidator who is present in the Court, Mr DN Patel learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel and Mrs. PJ Davawala learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel. Mrs. PJ Davawala has tendered a letter dated 23.7.2001 received by her from the office of Registrar of Companies, Gujarat wherein it is stated that the scheme for amalgamation was sent for examination to the Central Government and the Government has decided that the matter be left to the decision of the Court on merits. The said letter is taken on record.2. The report of the OL based on the report of the Chartered Accountant of transferor company, is self explanatory. It is submitted that on scrutiny and investigation of the books of accounts and affairs of the companies are in accordance with the norms. The report of the Chartered Accountant says that scrutiny of the record and books of account produced before them, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakor Girishji Alias Gidhaji Jenaji Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1148
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Ms. D.R. Kachhava, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned AGP on behalf of the respondents. In the present petition, the order of detention dated 6th January, 2001 which actually effected on 10th January, 2001 has been challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana under Section 3[1] of the PASA Act. The present petitioner has been detained in District Jail Bhavnagar as Class-II detenu. The grounds of detention have been communicated and supplied to the petitioner under Section 9[1] of the PASA Act. According to the grounds of detention, three offences have been registered against the present petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act and the last offence registered is dated 6th November, 2000. The statements of the secret witnesses were recorded on 26th November, 2000 and the same has been verifie...
Tag this Judgment!Legal Heirs of Purushottam Gajadhar Upadhyay Vs. Police Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3724
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The petitioners are the heirs of one Mr.Purushottam Gajadhar Upadhyay, a deceased Government employee. The deceased was working in the Police department as constable. It is averred in the petition that on December 12, 1996, he got severe chest pain and he was taken to a private Clinic of Dr.Rumin B. Shah and since his condition further deteriorated, he was shifted to Mayo Hospital. Coronary Angiography followed by a Coronary Angioplasty were performed on him on January 13, 1997.3. The deceased spent Rs.98,521/- for the said treatment and he, therefore, submitted bills with the relevant material for the purpose of reimbursement of the said amount. However, respondent No.1, by his letter dated 31st March, 1998, refused to make any payment on the ground that the deceased was not entitled for any amount. The deceased therafter again applied on 8.6.1998. That application was also dis...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas188(Guj); (2003)42SCC163
C.K. Buch, J.1. By means of taking out this judge's summons, the applicant Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. (GAEL for short) has prayed that the name of the applicant-company be entered into the register of the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) as the consumer in respect of connection No. 33222without requiring the applicant to pay an additional security deposit. It is further prayed that applicant-company be treated as the consumer of the GEB for the purpose of the aforesaid connection.2. I have heard learned counsel Mrs. Soparkar for the applicant-company and Ms. Shraddha Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the GEB. Since the court was personally interested in knowing the mathematical technicality, if any, in the scheme of the GEB, learned counsel appearing for the GEB was asked to keep a responsible officer of the Board present before this court and accordingly, Shri Bhupendra Joshi, Executive Engineer of the concerned area of the GEB appeared before the court and assisted the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »