Gujarat Court January 2002 Judgments
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(151)ELT63(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, a limited company, has challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, two orders dated 11-5-1984 and 14-5-1984, whereby the approved price list and the approval of revised ground plan was cancelled respectively by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-III, Baroda. The petitioner has further challenged consequential show cause notices dated 21-5-1984, 10-8-1984, 11-10-1984 and 29-10-1985.2. The petitioner company carries on business of manufacturing glassware and also carries on process of colour printing and decorating glassware. It appears that based on Trade Notice No. MP/24/80, dated 8-2-1980 which in terms was based on Tariff Advice 2/80, dated 4-1-1980 the petitioner company took up a stand that the activity of decorating glassware in a separate factory would not amount to manufacture and as such value in relation to the said process would not be includable for the purpose of computing of duty. Accordingly, the prin...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shantilal Gopalji Mota and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2138
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. On a joint request of learned Counsel, this appeal is taken up for final hearing today.2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, at the instance of the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kutch 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. 17, whereas the main claim petition under Section 166 of the Act being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1507 of 1999 is yet pending.4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondents have 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 conten...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Ratilal Maganbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR562
Jayant Patel, J.1. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the main question arises for the consideration of this Court is that whether this Court should exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the transferor of a voluntary sale for examining as to whether the said sale was in breach of provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), more particularly, when the said transferor himself is a party to the said voluntary sale and when he has not resorted to any procedure for getting the declaration that the said sale is void or otherwise.2. The short facts of the present appeal are that the appellants who are the original petitioners are the legal heirs of Maganlal Joitaram Patel. The said deceased Maganlal Joitaram Patel had sold the land measuring 1 hectare 80 RA 09 Gunthas bearing Block No. 335 situated at village Sela, Taluka Sanand of Ahmedabad District. As pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashok Fashion Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC410; 2002(141)ELT606(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has referred the following question of law to this High Court under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 :'Whether in absence of any specific penal provisions in Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the provisions relating to confiscation and imposition of penalty are applicable to man-made fabrics which are 'excisable goods' finding mention in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 though they are liable to additional duty of excise only?'2. There was a raid conducted in the premises of the appellant by the officers of the department on 12th/13th February, 1993 and a panchnama was drawn in respect of the proceedings undertaken during the raid. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 11th May, 1993 in respect of the violations of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the appellant was called upon to pay duty of...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Laxmandas Lakhani Vs. Krishnaben Girdharilal Lalvani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj398
H.H. Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code directed against order dated 2nd August, 1999 passed below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 161 of 1999 by the learned IIIrd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vododara.2. The present appellant !s the plaintiff, while respondent is the defendantin aforesaid suit.3. Facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows :3.1 Formerly, plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1044 of 1998 for a decree of declaration to the effect that defendant has no right, title or interest to transfer the suit property described in Para 11 of the plaint to any other person, without consent of plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff also prayed for a perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining defendant from transferring the said property to any other person. Subsequently plaintiff amended the plaint and prayed for a decree for specific performance of an agreement to ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Mangtani Vs. Geeta Jagdish Mangtani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR309
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Jagdish Mangtani appellant-husband (original petitioner) has filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1999 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Kachchh at Gandhidham in Regular Civil Appeal No. 189 of 1999. The learned Judge by his impugned judgment and decree was pleased to allow the appeal filed by Smt. Geeta Jagdish Mangtani wife (original respondent). The learned Judge was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18-6-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 14 of 1998 filed by Shri Jagdish Mangtani appellant-husband. Thelearned trial Judge has passed a decree of divorce between the appellant and the respondent wife by dissolving their marriage as provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :2.1 Marriage between Jagdish Mangtani-appellant husband and Geeta Jagdish Mangtani ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shivram Mansang Makwana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3245
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. 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 Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham, passed under Section 163-A of the said Act.2. The claim was preferred before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the said Act on account of the death of the claimant's daughter aged about five years. This is obvious from the averments made in the application itself. The Tribunal applied the structured formula enumerated in the Second Schedule to the said Act, and took the notional income of the deceased child at Rs. 15,000/- per annum as provided by Item 6 of the said Schedule. If this notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum is accepted, the aggregate compensation awarded by the Tribunal on this basis is correct, even according to the learned Counsel for the appellant.3. However, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that this notional income cannot be applied in...
Tag this Judgment!Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1972; (2002)2GLR1831
D.P. Buch, J. 1. This is a Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and conviction order recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. at Vanthali dated 19-4-1991 in Criminal Case No. 200 of 1985 under which the learned Magistrate had convicted the present petitioner and his co-accused for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for six months. The petitioner was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of fine he was required to further undergo S.I. for 3 months. The said judgment and conviction order were confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1991 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh on 20-9-2000 under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had partly allowed the said appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the first accused - Ravji Vashram and conviction of the present pet...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Sub-division 2 Vs. Jitendrakumar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ309Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandayia for the petitioner and Mr. Amar Mithani for the respondent workman. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Amar Mithani, the learned advocate for the respondent workman. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today itself, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award made by the Labour Court, Junagadh dated October 5, 2000 in Reference (LCJ) No. 86 of 1994 whereby the Labour Court has allowed the said reference in part and has ordered to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and with 20 per cent of the back wages for the intervening period. In this petition, notice was issued by this Court on September 19, 2001 by making it returnable on October 3, 2001 and interim relief in terms of para 10(C) of the petition was also granted. In this petition, the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Champakbhai @ Gatubhai Somabhai Halpati Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC354; (2002)4GLR2989
B.C. Patel, J.1. In view of the order made by the learned Chief Justice, this matter is placed before this Court as the learned Judges hearing the Criminal Appeal deferred in their opinion about culpability of the appellant-accused.2. The sole appellant-accused of Sessions Case No. 53 of 1993 was tried for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and was held guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- [in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months]. However, the appellant was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It is against this order dated 31/12/1994, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-accused.3. Laliben Gatubhai (P.W.-5) lodged...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »