Gujarat Court December 2002 Judgments
Rohitkumar Bhavanishanker Dave and ors. Vs. Jayshanker Chhotashanker D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1694
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. K. Majmudar for the petitioner and Ms. Meghaben Jani, learned Advocate for the respondent. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th July, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Savli below Exh. 26 in R.C.S. No. 48 of 1988. It was submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar on behalf of the petitioner that the Court below has committed gross jurisdictional error in deciding the matter as if he has been deciding the suit itself finally. He also submitted that the observations made in the said order at page 43 that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is the tenant under the Tenancy Act amounts to virtually allowing the suit against the present petitioner. He also submitted that on one hand, the Court below is not framing the issue and rejecting the application Exh. 26 and on the other hand, the Court below is giving contradictory findings which are per...
Tag this Judgment!Raginiben Gunvantsinh Tank Vs. Gunvantlal Keshavlal Tank and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2002
Reported in: I(2004)DMC476; (2003)3GLR2027
C.K. Buck, J.1. The petitioner and respondent are the original complainant and original accused of Criminal Case No. 1887 of 1999 filed in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Halol, respectively. The petitioner is a legally wedded wife of respondent No. 1-Gunvantlal Keshavlal Tank. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively. 2. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage, streedhan was given to her by her parents, relatives and friends which she has taken with her at her matrimonial home. Therefore, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and she left the matrimonial home with empty hands. With a view to get her streedhan back from the accused, attempts were made, but as no heed was paid by the accused to the request made by the petitioner, she ultimately was compelled to file criminal complaint in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Halol for the offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. The complaint was sent for police invest...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanlaxmi Texturisers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2002
Reported in: 2005(179)ELT23(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, Shri D.N. Patel for the respondent.2. The petitioner have challenged the validity of order dated 18th May, 2002 passed by the CEGAT.3. Learned Advocate, Shri Paresh M. Dave appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the said order passed by the CEGAT is unjust, improper and illegal because while passing the impugned order the CEGAT had ignored its view expressed in the case of Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Kochi reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 127 (T) = 1993 (48) ECR 286 (Tribunal). It has been also submitted by him that the view expressed in Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables & Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1110. It has been thereafter submitted by him that the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables & Conductors Ltd. v....
Tag this Judgment!Ankita Tax-chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2002
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT18(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri D.N. Patel for the respondents.2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of order dated 18th May, 2002 passed by the CEGAT.3. Learned Advocate Shri Paresh M. Dave appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the said order passed by the CEGAT is unjust, improper and illegal because while passing the impugned order the CEGAT had ignored its view expressed in the case of Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Kochi reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 127 (T) = 1993 (48) ECR 286 (Tribunal). It has been also submitted by him that the view expressed in Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables & Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1110. It has been thereafter submitted by him that the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables & Conductors Ltd. v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Narsinghbhai Patel Vs. Regional Passport Office and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj143
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. N. J. Shah, learned counsel appearing for Mr. D. N. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Ms. Davawala, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 waives service of notice of rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. The short point involved in this petition is what should be the mode and method of sending the passport by the passport authority to the person concerned, who is entitled to have the delivery of the passport.3. The short, facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for passport and it is the case of the passport authority that the passport was sent to the petitioner by speed post and the passport authority has not received the passport back as undelivered from the postal department and, therefore, it is assumed that the passport must have been delivered to the addressee, who is the petitioner herein.4. The petitioner has approached before th...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerlal Gafurbhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2002
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Guj)363; [2004]269ITR508(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law, arising out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of sec. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the exemption u/s 5(1)(xvia) in respect of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980?'2. The facts giving rise to the reference, in a nutshell, are as under :3. In 1965, a declaration was made by the Union of India to the effect that the country wanted to strengthen its defence forces against possible aggression by enemy countries and, therefore, the country needed arms and armaments and machines that would make arms and armaments so that the country can become self-sufficient in the matter of its defence. The country required machinery and raw material for the industries to support t...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Rameshbhai Murjibhai Patel and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1844
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as they are arising out of the impugned common judgment and award dated 17-4-2001 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 624 to 629 of 1989. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was issued for acquiring the lands situated at village Kotiyamu of Taluka Jhagadia, District Bharuch for public purpose of irrigation tank at Andhara village. It was followed by notification dated 6-10-1988 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his award under Section 11 of the Act on 28-2-1989 whereby the respondents-claimants-owners of the lands were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 125/- per Are. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 28th February, 1989 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, all the claimants filed Land Reference Case Nos. 624 to 629 of 198...
Tag this Judgment!Nirma Ltd. Vs. Lurgi Energie Und Entsorgung Gmbh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj145; 2003(2)ARBLR241(Gujarat); (2003)1GLR438
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred from the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Application No. 46 of 2002 filed by the appellant herein for setting aside the 'First Partial Award' dated 8-4-2002 of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (I.C.C.) in I.C.C. Arbitration Case No. 11396/TE between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 herein. The other respondents herein are the members of the Arbitral Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the appellant(original petitioner) is described hereinafter as 'NIRMA' and the respondent No. 1 is described as 'LURGI'. The impugned judgment rejecting the prayer to set aside the award held the application therefore to be not maintainable on the ground that the impugned arbitral award only refuses to accept the plea of jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Amc Vs. Nareshchandra Somalal Gor and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj177
ORDERH.K. Radhod, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. M. Chhaya on behalf of the petitioner-Municipal Corporation and learned advocate Mr. P. R. Nanavati appearing on behalf of the respondents in each petition.2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. P. R. Nanavati waives service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondent.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :--The respondent No. 1 was allotted the right of superstructure on Block No. 5/A/3 of the property belonging to the petitioner Corporation situate behind Lal Bungalow, C.G. Road known as Ellisbridge Staff Quarters on the basis of the Resolution No. 1967 dated 5th January, 1989. It was specific condition of the said resolution that the respondent shall not transfer ownership and possession of the said property to any third without prior permission of the Municipal Corporation. According to the Corporation, the respondent No. 1 after having taken benefit of the said resolution, the respondent No. 1 has transf...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodbhai Mohanbhai Vekaria Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj231; (2003)3GLR2328
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Gori, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State Government. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The short question involved in this petition is that if civil suit is filed prior to the enactment of Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes. Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted or is required to be transferred to the Tribunal or whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try such suits.3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 151/1986 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal for the recovery of Rs. 5,72,575.82 on the ground of recovery of the amount towards security deposit, non-payment of the work already undertaken, loss of profit etc. of the works contract entered into by the petitioner with the respondent State Government. In the said Civil Suit, Applic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »