Gujarat Court September 2001 Judgments
J.D. Vora Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3442
D.P. Buch, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners above named for appropriate writ, order or direction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that the office order dated 2.3.1988 of the Dy.General Manager, office order dated 16.9.1989 of the General Manager and order dated 11.8.1992 of the Company Secretary of the Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation amending the T.A. Rules and Holiday Rules adversely affecting the petitioners are unconstitutional, null and void being in excess of the authority vested in them and in disregard to the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have also prayed for appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent Corporation to enforce the Service Rules of 1975 as framed and adopted by the Board of Directors of Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation in favour of the petitioners and to cancel and set aside the office order referred to hereinabove issued by the subordinate officers on the ground that they contrav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cadila Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Guj)37; [2003]259ITR692(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 :'1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the subsidy amount should not be deducted from the cost of plant and machinery for allowing depreciation, investment allowance and for computation of capital employed under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that for working out relief under Section 80HH of the Act, initial depreciation has not to be deducted from the profits of the company?'2. We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the Revenue. Though served, none appears as for the respondent assessee.3. At the hearing of this reference, the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the controversy raised in question No. 1 is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Narmada Aluminium Extusion Ltd. (Old) Vs. Taj Basheer Ahmed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3588
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Makwana for the applicant original respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sen, learned AGP for State of Gujarat, Mr. H.J. Nanavaty, learned advocate for opponent NO.1 and Mr. Paresh Upadhyaya for opponent No.3.2. In para 9(A) of the present application, the applicant original respondent no.1 has prayed that the orders dated 9.5.2000 and 14.8.2001 may be recalled and/or vacated and the respondent No.1 may be exonerated from remaining present before this Court. 3. Brief facts of special civil application NO. 1131 of 2000 filed by the petitioner Tajbashir who is the workman of respondent NO.1 are as under: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the labour Court, Bharuch in recovery application no. 7 of 1997 and 281 of 1998 dated 27th January, 2000 which recovery application was filed by the workman in pursuance to the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in respect of the complaint bearing No. IT/58/92 in Reference No. IT 116 of 1992 wherei...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kashyap Surendrabhai Naik Vs. Dr. D.N. Shah or His Successor Dean, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR517
R. M. Doshit, J.1. Both these petitions involve similar set of facts and identical question of law. Both these petitions, are therefore, with the consent of the learned Advocates decided by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6629 of 2001 is a Doctor belonging to Socially & Educationally Backward Class as well as Nomadic Tribe. She seeks admission to Post-Graduate Medical Course on the seat reserved for Socially & Educationally Backward Class. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6312 of 2001 also belongs to Socially & Educationally Backward Class as well as a Nomadic Tribe. He also seeks admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Course on a seat reserved for Socially & Educationally Backward Class. Both the said petitioners had secured admission to Medical College at undergraduate level as a member of Nomadic Tribe on a surplus seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The question is whether they can now claim admission to Post-Graduate...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rambhai N. Amin
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR733(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 : '(i) Whether, in law and on facts the provisions of Section 64(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted for including the share income of Smt. Achalaben in the hands of the assessee, who is the father-in-law of Achalaben (ii) Whether, when an assessee, the father-in-law of Smt. Achalaben, had gifted Rs. 10,000 out of which investment, she became a partner in the firm of Mira Industries, the provisions of Section 64(l)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted ?' 2. We have heard Mr. Akil Kureshi, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Soparkar with Mr. Manish Kaji, for the respondent-assessee. 3. The assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 1982-83. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer noted that the assessee had m...
Tag this Judgment!Artiben Sashankbhai Vasa Vs. Sashankbhai Prafulchandra Vasa
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3290
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The appellants-plaintiffs have challenged in this appeal the impugned order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No.159 of 1999 whereby the learned Judge returned plaint to the plaintiffs for presenting the same before the court which has jurisdiction, as according to him, he had no jurisdiction to try the suit for damages and maintenance. It is a brief order, therefore, I would like to reproduce the same which is as under :-2. Thus, the learned judge held that provisions of Section 20(c) Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') would be applicable and provisions of Section 19 CPC would not be applicable as the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for damages and maintenance. The suit can be filed in a case where marriage took place. Looking to the averments made in the plaint, nowhere it appears that the marriage took place between the parties in the jurisdiction of the court and deliberately ...
Tag this Judgment!Meruben D/O. Sorabji Pestanji Bhatporiya and W/O. Late Peshi Morena an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR640
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Rule. Mr. S. P. Sen, learned A.G.P., waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned Advocate, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 4.2. Heard Mr. N. V. Gandhi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned A.G.P., Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.3. The brief facts of the present petition are as under :3.1 The land bearing Survey Nos. 753-758 situated in the sim of Village Umra belonging to late Shri Sorabji was acquired by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Authority. Late Shri Sorabji, had therefore, purchased the land bearing Survey Nos. 319/1/1 and 319/1/2 having Block No. 418 situated at Village Gothan, Dist. Surat from respondent No. 4, by registered Sale Deed.3.2 In 1990, the original landlord, Shri Dayabhai and his wife, Maniben had challenged the Entry No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Railway Manager, Western Raiway, Rajkot and anr. Vs. Secret ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR498]; (2002)2GLR1164
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule returnable today. Mr. Mishra waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally today.The present Special Civil Application has been filed by the Railway Administration, challenging the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Application (I.T.C.) No. 8 of 1999.2. The facts leading to the present controversy are as under :-The respondent-Union had raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Ahmedabad and was numbered as Reference (I.T.C.) No. 14 of 1997. The aforesaid dispute was raised by the Union for certain demands. At this stage, we are not concerned with the merits of the said Reference. The aforesaid Reference was dismissed for default since on behalf of the respondent-Union, nobody remained present on the relevant day before the Tribunal. The original order, by which the said reference was dismissed for default, i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textile and General Engineer Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: [2003]259ITR735(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. In compliance with the directions issued by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has raised and referred the following four questions for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, the Tribunal has been right in law in confirming the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in deleting the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that on completion of assessment in the status of a registered firm the assessee was entitled to a refund and hence no penalty was leviable, is correct in law ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in distinguishing the judgment in the case of CIT v. R. Ochhavlal and Co. : [1976]105ITR518(Guj) , wherein it was clearly held that when a registered firm commits a default, the provisions of Section 271(2) of the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanabhai Amarshibhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3044
B.C. Patel, J.1. This group of Special Civil Applications is filed inter alia praying to direct the respondents to pay amount of rent/interest at a prescribed rate of interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession (i.e. 1-4-1987) and interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till the amount is paid on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 3-4-2000 made Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2. Facts are taken from Special Civil Application No. 1166 of 2001. In Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 1996 lands situated at village Kuvar, Taluka Sanand, Dist. Ahmedabad were acquired and the market price was determined at the rate of Rs. 91- per sq. mt. For acquisition of lands covered under Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 1996, a notification was published Under Section 4 of the Act on 7th April, 1997 and the Award was made Under Section 11 of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »