Gujarat Court December 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Farshubhai Prabhurambbai Kakkad Vs. Director of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN350(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. Looking to the fact that both the petitioners are partners in M/s. J.P. Finance, and as facts of both the petitioners are similar, at the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are heard together.2. Looking to the facts of the case, rule is issued in both the petitions. Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned Sr. standing counsel for the Central Government, appears for the respondents in both the petitions and waives service of rule. At the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are finally heard today.3. The petitioners in both the petitions challenge the validity of an authorization issued by the Addl. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad, in favour of respondent No. 2, dated 21-6-2002 under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the Additional Director of Income Tax is not competent to issue such an authorization ...
Vahanvati Agro Centre and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)3GLR1965
D.P. Buch, J. 1. Rule. Mr. L. R. Pujari, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, this matter is being heard and disposed of finally.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') for quashing a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Sidhpur in Mehsana District for offence punishable unde Sections 3, 17 and 18 read with Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act'). The said complaint has been registered before the said Court as Criminal Case No. 728 of 1998.3. It was alleged in the said complaint by the second respondent that the second respondent was working as an Agricultural Inspector in Agriculture Department at Sidhpur in Mehsana District. That it was his function and duty to collect samples of insecticides and fertilizer for being sent to appropriate laboratory for chemical test. ...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Hathibhai Senghabhai Rupp ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1759; (2003)1GLR761; (2003)IILLJ676Guj
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Admit. Service of notice of admission is waived by Mr. H. M. Padhya learned Advocate for and on behalf of the respondents. In view of the peculiar facts of the case and short question involved in the case as well as upon joint request of the learned Advocates for the parties, we have taken up this appeal today, for final hearing.2. The short question which requires to be determined and adjudicated upon is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is required to be slashed from the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), District Banaskantha, Palanpur in the case of fatal injuries on account of the vehicular accident, for which as such there is consensus even amongst the lawyers appearing for the parties. Therefore, the amount which has been awarded under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the Workmen's Commissioner for the death of the empl...
Hariprasad S. Bhatt Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2025
D.S. Sinha, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. J.V. Japee, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.2. The petitioner, a former employee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha, the respondent No. 1, has filed instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by way of Public Interest Litigation, alleging that the respondent No. 1 committed gross illegalities and irregularities in 10 appointments of its staff by appointing the close relatives of its Members, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and also of the Director, Agricultural Market and Rural Finance, Gujarat State. On mis premise, he urges this Court to initiate appropriate inquiry in accordance with law against the alleged illegal appointments made by the respondent No. 1. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the concerned authorities be directed to take appropriate actions against the respondent No. 1.3. From the material on record it transpires that the alleged irregularities in the appoin...
K.D. Vohra Vs. Kamleshbhai Gobarbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1343
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This group of appeals has been preferred by persons who were appointed as ad hoc lecturers pending the availability of the regular recruits through the Gujarat Public Service Commission (G.P.S.C. for short), to the post of Lecturer, Gujarat Educational Service, Class II, (Collegiate Branch), against the common judgment and order dated 15th July, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the Special Civil Application No. 2395 of 2001 and other cognate matters which were filed by the candidates selected through the G.P.S.C. as per the Recruitment Rules applicable to the said post and rejecting the Special Civil Application No. 4396 of 2001 and other cognate matters which were filed by the ad hoc appointees, who were required to be replaced by the G.P.S.C. selectees.2. In Special Civil Application No. 2395 of 2001 and its cognate matters which were filed by the direct selectees through the G.P.S.C., it was prayed that the petitioners should be appointed to th...
Official Liquidator of Gujarat Investment Trust Ltd. Vs. Kavasji Tehmu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]45SCL514(Guj)
ORDER1. The present Company Application is filed and Judge's Summons is taken out under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 in making following prayers :(1) For a declaration that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and others as Directors of the Company were guilty of misfeasance, breach of trust, breach of duty, gross negligence in discharging their duties and in managing the affairs of the Company and guilty of fraudulent conduct in relation to the Company,(2) For a declaration that the respondents are liable and accountable for the non-recovery of loans and advances by the Company and also for interest at reasonable market rates on the loans and advances by the Company.(3) For an order against all of them or such of them as may be held liable jointly or severally to repay various loans and advances made to themselves and/or their friends and/or relatives and others with interest at reasonable market rate and to contribute such amount to the assets of the Company by way of compensation...
Nazir Mohammad AllaudIn Lilgar (Decd.) Through His Heirs and Lrs. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3537
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. D.K. Nakrani, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1-1/6 waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of all the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.The short point involved in this petition is that the amendment application was made, which has been rejected by the trial Court as per the order dated 1-8-2002, which is the subject-matter of this petition.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are landlords. It is the case of the petitioners that since they being the legal heirs of the original defendant namely; Nazir Mohammad Allaudin Lilgar, they were not aware of the proceedings of the earlier suit being H.R.P. Suit No. 4136 of 1981. It is the contention of the petitioners that the judgment was delivered by the Small Causes Court No. 5 at Ahmedabad in the aforesaid H.R.P. suit, where it is inter alia contended by the landlords that the superstructure is constructed by the defendant...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Milex Cable Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR675(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was leviable on the asses-see for the assessment years under reference ?'2. We have heard learned standing counsel Shri Tanvish Bhatt for the Central Government appearing for the applicant, and the learned advocate, Shri K. H. Kaji, appearing for the respondent-assessee.3. The facts giving rise to the reference, in a nutshell, are as under :The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm. It filed its returns for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, the previous years being Samvat years 2034 and 2035, respectively.4. After filing the returns, the assessments were framed o...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat State Ware Housing Corpn.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1389; AIR2003Guj159
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited appellant (original defendant) has filed this appeal against judgment and decree dated 17-8-2001 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3769 of 1990. The learned Judge by his impugned judgment held that the suit filed by Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation-plaintiff be decreed and the appellant-defendant-Insurance Company shall pay a sum of Rs. 43,471.20 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the recovery to the plaintiff and also cost to the plaintiff.2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under :2.1 The plaintiff is a statutory Corporation established with an object of providing scientific godown facilities to the private and public sector at competitive rates and it has various such centres all over the State of Gujarat. It has godowns in Ahmedabad and godown at Balaji Estate No. 17 was used for storing fertilizer bags of Gujarat State Fertilizer Co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Milex Cable Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Guj)442
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, was leviable on the assessee for the assessment years under reference ?'2. We have heard learned standing counsel Shri Tanvish Bhatt for the central Government appearing for the applicant and learned advocate Shri. K.H. Kaji appearing for the respondent-assessee.3. The facts giving rise to the reference, in a nutshell, are as under :4. The respondent-assessee is a partnership-firm. It filed its returns for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81, the previous years being S. Yrs. 2034 and 2035, respectively.5. After filing the returns, the assessments were framed on 18th Oct., 1979, and 12th Feb., 1981, for the said t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »