Gujarat Court October 2002 Judgments
Sarvagna Navinchandra Godiawala Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1266
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 12-10-1998 and 25-1-1999/1-2-1999 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad and the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal), respectively, produced by the petitioner at Annexures 'E' and 'G' to the petition.2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State, which is at Annexure 'G' to the petition (page 32 of the compilation). By the impugned order, the Secretary has remanded the matter to the Collector for taking fresh decision as per the observations made in the remand order.3. The petitioner is a purchaser of agricultural land. The said land was purchased by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 27-4-1981. On the basis of such sale, even a revenue entry was also mutated in the name of the present petitioner as purchaser on 5-5-1981. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: [2004]268ITR502(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions arising out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', have been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. At the instance of the assessee :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in considering the commission paid to the managing director as the perquisite for the purpose of Section 40(c) of the Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, legal and professional expenses of Rs. 22,518 in respect of amalgamation of the sister concern with the assessee-company is allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure ?'3. Mr. J. P. Shah, learned advocate, has appeared for the assessee and Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel has appeared for the Revenue.4. Learned counsel have submitted that the...
Tag this Judgment!Mavjibhai Karsanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR603
A.L. Dave, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Application is preferred by accused facing criminal trial before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.162 of 1997. The petitioners in Misc. Criminal Revision Application No.2696 of 2000 are co-accused to the present revisioners. The revisioners are aggrieved by an order passed by learned Additional City Sessions judge, Court No.10, on the 18th May, 2000, allowing application Ex.13 before him in the said Sessions Case, praying for a direction for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the investigating agency. The said application, Ex.13, was tendered by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, stating that deceased-Riddhiben Nareshbhai Patel was taken to Civil Hospital by Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Patel, where history was given that her mother sustained electric current while heating water with electric heater for bathing. However, the Panchnama of the place of i...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN260(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions arising out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' have been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :At the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in considering the commission paid to the Managing Director as the perquisite for the purpose of section 40(c) of the Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, legal and professional expenses of Rs. 22,518 in respect of amalgamation of the sister concern with the assessee-company is allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure ?'2. Mr. J.P. Shah, learned Advocate has appeared for the assessee and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel has appeared for the revenue.3. Learned counsel have submitted that the questions ...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Rasania Vs. Gujarat Housing Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR466
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement (Annexure 'D' to the petition) passed by the Competent Authority, under Rule 161(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959.2. In order to appreciate the controversy before the Court, it is first necessary to examine certain relevant facts.2.1 The petitioner had joined the service of the respondent-Board and was at an appropriate stage, appointed as Junior Engineer by an order passed by the respondent dated 11th August, 1972. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 25th October, 1982. Thereafter, he was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 18th July, 1992, and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1st April, 1994. It requires to be noted that these facts are not in dispute.2.2 The petitioner, was thereafter, placed under suspension (pending inquiry) by an order dated 6th August, 1998. Two sets of charges wer...
Tag this Judgment!Bhargavkumar Pranshankar Shukla Vs. Chhayaben Bhargavkumar Shukla
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC428; (2003)1GLR865
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Bhargavkumar Pranshanker Shukla, appellant original petitioner has filed this appeal under provisions of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the judgment and decree dated 6th November, 1998, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 262 of 1992. The learned Judge by his impugned judgment pleased to dismiss the said petition of divorce filed by petitioner-husband in this behalf.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-2.1 Marriage between Bhargavkumar Pranshanker Shukla - appellant husband (original petitioner) and Chhayaben Bhargavkumar Shukla - respondent-wife (original opponent) was solemnised on 30th January, 1982, as per Hindu rites at Ahmedabad. The opponent-wife gave birth to a female child in December, 1982 whose name is 'Vaacha'.2.2 It appears that there was some difference and dispute between petitioner-husband and respondent-wife. They have also some difference and di...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Guj)266; [2003]259ITR526(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This reference has been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated March 13, 2001, passed by a Division Bench of this court taking the view that the decision of another Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Windsor Foods Ltd : [1999]235ITR249(Guj) , dealing with the question of interplay between the provisions of Section 32A (investment allowance) and those of Section 32A (relating to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), requires reconsideration.2. The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing fertilizers and other products. The assessee entered into a contract for purchasing plant and machineries (the assets) from a Japanese company on deferred credit basis. Though the year of purchase is not clear from the paper book, the assessee was required to make payment in instalments over a period of 12 years (page 203).3. The liability for the instalments towards the cost of the assets for the calendar years 197...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj157
ORDER1. This is an application filed by Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the applicant company') seeking partial modification/review oforder dated 2nd July, 2001 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4578 of 1997, reported in AIR 2002 Gujarat 59 (Coram : Justice B. C. Patel (as he then was) & Justice D. A, Mehta.2. The application is principally seeking deletion of direction issued in Para 69 (4) of the aforesaid judgment, whereby the applicant company has been restricted from supplying electric connection to a building unless Building Use Permission has been issued either by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and/or Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, as the case may be.3. Mr. K. B. Pujara, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant company, submitted that the applicant company seeks review/modification of the aforesaid judgment on the following grounds :(1) That the petition was filed in relation to fire safety system not being provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Jethalal Jivabhai Pandya Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR767
J.R. Vora, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th January, 1992 placed along with the petition at Annexure-D and to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. It was also prayed that the petitioner be provided lighter duty which he was performing earlier. The petition has arisen on the following backdrop. 2. The petitioner was serving as a First Grade Head Constable in State Reserve Police Force Group No. 13, Rajkot, however, we are not able to ascertain the date of his recruitment as such. But, in 1985, the petitioner suffered a heart attack and till then he had put the service of many years. In 1985 on account of heart attack, the petitioner remained on leave for six months and resumed his duties and discharged duties upto 1989. Not only that he was promoted to First Grade Head Constable on 1st of June, 1989. However, in the year 1989 after the promotion, the petitioner requested t...
Tag this Judgment!Maniben Tasukhbhai Vs. Patel Ranchhodbhai Valjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC570; 2004ACJ994
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates Mr.J.R.Nanavati on behalf of the appellants-claimants, Mr.K.G.Sheth on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.R.C.Jani appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.2. In the present appeal, the claimants have challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli in M.A.C.P.No. 11 of 1983, dated 2nd December 1983. The Tribunal has directed the respondents to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,750/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the petition till realisation of the amount and proportionate costs. The Tribunal has also apportioned the above amount as under:Rs.15,125/- to Claimant No. 1 and Rs.11,875/- each to Claimant Nos.2 to 4. The amount awarded to Claimant Nos.2 to 4, they being minor children, has been ordered to be invested in Scheduled Bank in long term deposit and the amount of interest and costs has been ordered to be paid to Claimant No.1.3. Learned Advocate Mr.J.R.Nanavati, appearing on behalf of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »