Gujarat Court November 2002 Judgments
Shrijee Trading Company Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3718
Jayant Patel, J. 1. In all these petitions, common question c arises for the consideration is regarding the legality and validity of the amendment made in the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 ('Control Order' or 'Order of 81' for short) and its effect.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the persons who are functioning as wholesale dealers in PDS kerosene, but they are not the authorised dealers of the manufacturing Oil Company. There is no dispute on the point that the PDS kerosene is one of the notified essential commodities. The supply of PDS kerosene('Kerosene' for short) is regulated in the Gujarat State by the aforesaid Control Order. It is the case of the State Govt that earlier, on account of policy decision taken by the State Govt to abolish the system of functioning by wholesale dealers who are not company agents, instructions were issued to the Licensing authority empowered to grant licence under the Con...
Tag this Judgment!Rasulbhai Amirbhai Garasia Vs. D.Y. Mamlatdar (Revenue)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR138
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C.L. Soni for the petitioner; Mr. H.C. Patel, learned AGP for respondents No.1 to 3. Learned advocate Mr. NA Shaikh appearing for newly added respondent No.4 who has been ordered to be joined as respondent No. 4 by passing orders in Civil Application No. 8279 of 2002 has filed sick note for today.2 In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application NO. 162 of 1996 dated 3.11.1999. Brief facts, as narrated by the petitioner in this petition, are to the effect that the petitioned had declared the lands held by him in his own name as well as in the name of the joint family by submitting particulars in Form NO.2 under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The petitioner had declared that he, with his joint family, held lands ad measuring 28 Acres and 33 Gunthas. It was also declared by him that out of Block NO. 108 (survey no. 105), he had sold 7 ...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. P.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Kandla Port Trust and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR732
D.S. SINHA, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Anand L. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.R. Brahmbhatt, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, and Ms. P.J. Davawala, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.2. Capt. P.C. Chaturvedi, serving Kandla Port Trust, hereinafter called 'the Trust', as Deputy Conservator, has been awarded penalty of censure under Clause 10 of K.P.E. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1964, hereinafter called 'the Regulations', by an order dated 15th September, 1999 passed by the Chairman granted vide its order dated 8th September, 1999 as contemplated in Regulation 17 of the Regulations.3. Regulation 17 provides that no appeal shall lie against any order made with the approval of the Central Government. Therefore, the petitioner has filed instant Special Civil Application challenging the validity of the order dated 15thSeptember, 1999. Besides praying for quashing of the order, the petitioner has also p...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jayantilal Khatri (Decd.) Through ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3080
B.J. Shethna, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., original opponent No. 3 has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 24th April, 2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 338 of 1995 filed by the respondents-claimants, legal heirs of deceased Jayantilal Khatri who died in a vehicular accident which took place on 4-3-1995. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants and held that the opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e. driver, owner and Insurance Company were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2,23,000/- against claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation with costs.2. On the fateful day of 4th March, 1995, the deceased Jayantilal Khatri who was going on his bicycle in the early morning hours at 6-00 a....
Tag this Judgment!Vrujlal Bhagubhai Barot and anr. Vs. Dharamnagar Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR699
K.A. Puj, J.1. Rule. Mr. P. J. Kanabar, learned Advocate waives service of Rule. The present Civil Revision Application is filed against order passed by the learned Small Causes Court Judge, Ahmedabad, on 14-8-2002 in P.S.R.P. No. 2 of 2000. Upon an application moved by the present respondent, the learned Judge has directed the present applicants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the bailiff of the Court and has further directed the bailiff to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the present respondent.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present Civil Revision Application, as stated in the order of the learned Small Causes Court Judge, are as under. The present petitioner No. 1 was serving in the respondent-Society as a Watchman and to give him facility to discharge his duties smoothly, one room and osari and bathroom and W.C. were given to him only by way of a permissive user of the said facilities and the respondent was not collecting ...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Finance Ltd. Vs. Mansukh S. Dhokai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj269; 2003(3)ARBLR233(Gujarat); (2003)4GLR78
ORDERK.A. Puj, J. 1. The present revision application is filed against the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge (SD) Porbandar below an application Ex. 13 in Special Civil Suit No. 48/2000 on 26-12-2001 whereby the application moved by the present petitioner who is the ori. defendant in the suit, under Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte conditional injunction order due to lack of jurisdiction and also for referring the matter to the Arbitrator, was rejected. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner has financed a Premier Diesel 137 DLX, A.C. Car bearing registration No. GJ-11-E-4666 to the plaintiff-present respondent, who is the ori. plaintiff in the suit under the hire purchase agreemerit dated 8-6-1998. The respondent has failed to pay the regular instalments to the petitioner since October, 1999 and hence, the petitioner has made repeated request and sent reminders for payment of instalments, but the respondent has not paid any he...
Tag this Judgment!Pankajbhai H. Patel Vs. Kantaben Shri Krushna Agrawal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR129
K.A. Puj, J. 1.The present revision application is filed against the order passed by the ld. 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Ahmedabad on 19.9.2002 below an application ex. 156 in Civil Suit No. 1/1975 and below an application exh. 1 being Review Application No. 1/2002.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision application are stated as under:3. That the respondent herein who is the ori. plaintiff in the suit, has filed a Special Civil Suit No. 1/1975 for specific performance of the contract. In the said suit, the land in question was an agriculture land and, therefore, the ld. judge has referred the issue about the legality of the contract of agriculture land to the Mamlatdar and ALT. The land in question was situated beyond 8 kms. and whether the purchaser was an agriculturist having land within the notified area of 8 kms., was the issue which has been decided and the notification of restricting rights within 8 kms. is no more in force.4. It is further averred in the petition th...
Tag this Judgment!Payalben Jayeshbhai Yagnik Vs. Jayeshbhai G. Yagnik and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1736; (2003)2GLR1055
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. Payalben Jayeshbhai Yagnik, appellant - original applicant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 11 of 2000. The learned Judge by his impugned judgment was pleased to reject the said application which has been filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-2.1 The applicant has filed application under Section 140 of the Act to get the compensation amount on the principle of 'no fault liability'. In the said application, it was submitted that on 18th November, 1999, the petitioner met with the accident on the four cross-road near Ashwamegh Travels which is situated on the roads proceeding ahead from Vadilal Hospital towards Paldi. The petitioner had suffered grievous injuries and suffered fracture on right leg and she had taken treatment at Dr. Mukesh R...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sarabhai (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN43(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad applicant has filed this Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). At the instance of the revenue the following questions are referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation ?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing collection charges amounting to 6 per cent of Annual Letting Value under the head 'House property income and also allowing balance amount from the income under section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) bifurcating the income as income from house property and income from 'other sources'?4. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Guj)540; [2004]266ITR338(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been, referred to this Court for its opinion by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly when the assessee had agreed that depreciation claim will not be allowed for the period of 5 months, i.e. for the asst. yr. 1982-83, it was open to the assessee to claim depreciation on the ground that the condition imposed was illegal ? 2. Whether, when in view of changing the accounting period, a condition wasimposed by the ITO and accepted by the assessee it was open to the assesseeto subsequently challenge the said condition on the ground that it was illegaland not binding and that the assessee was entitled, to depreciation for theperiod of 5 months for asst, yr. 1982-83 ?' 2. Learned standing counsel for the Central Government Shri B.B. Nayak hasap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »