Gujarat Court January 2002 Judgments
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Through Municipal Commissioner Vs. She ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj280; (2002)2GLR944
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Corporation'), being aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-1998 made by the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 4970 of 1994 has preferred this appeal.2. The present respondent who was appellant before the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad preferred an appeal against the demand made in the bill with regard to special conservancy charges and water tax in respect of the premises namely Final Plot No. 89,102-P of Navrangpura area, Ahmedabad. It was contended by the respondent herein before the Small Cause Court that the appeal premises is a non-residential premises and is being used as Research Centre only. It was further contended that the premises is supplied water by putting water meter, and therefore, water can be taxed only according to water meter. With regard to conservancy charges, it was pointed out that hardly 5 to 6 persons are permanently working in the premises and v...
Tag this Judgment!Surat City Gymkhana Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Guj)139; [2002]254ITR733(Guj)
D. A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner and the respondent in this batch of petitions are common, so are the facts and submissions, and hence all these petitions were taken up for hearing and final disposal together at the admission stage.2. The petitioner is a charitable trust. It has been registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, vide certificate of registration dated February 24, 1983. On the same day, the petitioner-trust has also been registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Income-tax for being registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and has been accordingly registered on February 24, 1983. It is further relevant to note that the petitioner-trust was also granted certificate under Section 80G of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, on December 22, 1986, for the first time and thereafter the recognition under Section 80G of the Act has b...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavna Nalinkant Nanavati Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR529(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly taxed under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in respect of the shares of the value of Rs. 52,744 given to the Bhavana Nalinkant Trust ?'2. The applicant-assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1980-81 and the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1980. On February 19, 1979, the assessee created an irrevocable trust with initial sum of Rs. 1,000 by executing a deed of trust known as 'Bhavana Nalinkant Trust' (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust'). On February 22, 1979, the assessee addressed a letter to the trustees of the trust informing that she was gifting certain shares which were of her individual ownership. Along with the said letter the transfer forms duly completed and signed accom...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Raghu @ Raghavbhai Vashrambhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR205
ORDER(a) Trial SessionsAgainst accused No. 1Acquittal from all chargesCourt Judge, Arareli-Dist.Against accused No. 2Acquittal 'Against accused No. 3Acquittal '(b) Division Mr. R. K. Bench Abichandani, J.Against accused No. 1Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 read with 34of I.P.C.Against accused No. 2Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C.Against accused No. 3Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 read with 34of I.P.C.Mr. K. R.Against All Vyas, J.Acquittal from all charges25-1-2002(J. N. Bhatt, J.)Since the accused persons are not present today and they are required to be heard on the question of quantum of punishment as mandated in law under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C., request made by the learned Advocates appearing for the accused persons for adjournment for the purpose of hearing the accused persons on the quantum of punishment is accepted and the matter is now posted on 8th February 2002, as requested.25-1-2002 (J. N. Bhatt, J.)Design And Desideratum Of Hearing As Mandated Un...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavna Nalinkant Nanavati Vs. Cgt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Guj)152
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly taxed under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, in respect of the shares of the value of Rs. 52,744 given to Bhavana Nalinkant Trust ?'2. The applicant-assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1980-81 and the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1980. On 19-2-1979, the assessee created irrevocable trust with initial sum of Rs. 1,000 by executing a deed of trust known as 'Bhavana Nalinkant Trust' (hereinafter referred to as the trust). On 22-2-1979, the assessee addressed a letter to the trustees of the trust informing that she was gifting certain shares which were of her individual ownership. Along with the said letter the transfer forms duly completed and signed accompanied by the share certificates were also forwarded to th...
Tag this Judgment!AshwIn Vanaspati Industries Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Guj)90
D.A. Mehta, J.The applicant-assessee had proposed the following four questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :1 'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in invoking the provision of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of fact that the provisions were not invoked by the authorities below ?'2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 43(1) Explanation 3 of Income Tax Act, 1961, were applicable to the facts of the case in spite of fact that sufficient evidences like valuation report, dissolution deed, etc., in support of valuation of assets were before the Tribunal ?'3. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that onus of establishing that the purpose of transaction was to reduce the tax liability was d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: New Vision Laser Centers (Rajkot) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas756(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Heard Mr. Ashok Lalbhai with Mr. AR Majmudar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and considered the contents of the petition. I have also heard Mr. DN Patel, the learned Senior Central Government standing counsel as well as Ms. PJ Davawala, the learned Addl. Central Government standing counsel. I have also heard Mr. MA Kuvadia learned Official Liquidator.2. These petitions are for approval of the scheme of amalgamation of New Vision Laser Centers Ltd. ('the Transferor-Company') with the New Vision Laser Centers (Rajkot) Ltd. ('the Transferee-Company'). The scheme of amalgamation has been approved by shareholders of the transferee-company by giving their written consent. The shareholders and the secured creditors of the transferor-company have given written consent approving the proposed scheme. Hence, the meetings of the shareholders of both the companies and the creditors of the transferor-company were dispensed with as per orders dated 23-3-2001 in Company A...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushik Kantilal Trivedi and anr. Vs. Secretary, Gujarat Public Servic ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR83
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Both the matters are taken up for final hearing today and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Whether an Advocate practising in the District Court or even in the Labour or Industrial Court is eligible to be appointed to the post of Member, Industrial Court and whether such an Advocate can be described as 'an Advocate of the High Court' is the question which is required to be decided in the present petitions.3. So far as Special Civil Application No. 5859 of 2001 is concerned, the same is filed by Mr. Mansuri, who appears as party-in-person, and so far as Special Civil Application No. 11372 of 2001 is concerned, the same is filed by two petitioners, namely, Mr. K. K. Trivedi and Mr. A. R. Trivedi. All the aforesaid petitioners are practising Advocates. It is not in dispute that they are enrolled as the Advocates by the State Bar. Council. It is also not in dispute that each of the aforesaid petitioners is on the State Roll of the Bar Council since last m...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kankuben Lakhabhai Bhil and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC103; 2004ACJ1358
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Kutch at Bhuj, under Section 163-A of the said Act.3. It is pertinent to note that the said award has been passed by order below Exh. 6, in the nature of an interim award, while the main claim petition under Section 166, namely, Motor Accident ClaimPetition No. 927 of 1996 is yet pending.4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in law in treating the said claim petition under Section 163-A as a claim of an interim nature, and has dealt with it in a manner similar to a claim under Section 140 of the said Act. It was contended that on account of this approach on the part of the Tribunal, the appellant insurance company had no opportunity of leading appropriate evidence and/or meeting the ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.D. Pahochiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj249; (2002)1GLR258
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company - the original defendant under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the judgment and order passed by the trial Court on an application made by the respondent-original applicant under Section 20 of the said Act. The appeal arises on account of the fact that the trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, allowed the application of the respondent-applicant and directed that the dispute be referredto the chosen and designated arbitrator as a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties by passing the necessary award.2. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the said impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court on a number of grounds. In order to appreciate such contentions, it is necessary to observe and take note of certain factual aspects of the matter. The respondent-applicant was the owner of a truck which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The truck suffere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »