Gujarat Court February 2002 Judgments
Dilipbhai Madhubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ565; (2002)3GLR599
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The appellant in this appeal has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulsar at Navsari vide judgment dated 31-3-1994 in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1991 and the resultant order of sentence of imprisonment for life.2. The case of prosecution in nutshell can be stated as under :-2.1. Deceased Sumiben Natubhai lived in locality known as Mograwadi, near Bhut Bungalow in Bulsar with her family which comprised her husband and three children. She had developed illicit intimacy with the appellant 2 to 3 years prior to the date of incident. As a result of that intimacy, the appellant often visited her place. On one of such visits which took place on 22-8-1991 at about 9-00 p.m. the appellant demanded liquor from the deceased. Acceding to his request, the deceased gave him a glass full of liquor. After consuming the liquor, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 30/- from her. Dece...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Asean Jade Vs. Jaisu Shipping Com. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2000Guj241
ORDERK.M. Mehta, J. 1. M/s. Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd., petitioner-original plaintiff has filed this suit against the Owners of the Ship or Vessel 'Asean Crystal' (now known as Asean Mariner) owned by Universal Maritime Shipholding Ltd. defendant No. 1 and Glory Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. of Singapore defendant No. 2 that respondents-defendants be ordered and decreed to pay US $ 15,17,770 equivalent to Rs. 6,82,99,650/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Two Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only) along with interest @ 18% from the date of the suit till payment as also an amount of Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per day by way of damages from the date of the suit till the disposal of the suit and till the amount is paid, along with interest @ 18% thereon. The petitioner also prayed that the respondents-defendants be directed not to transfer the Asean Crystal (Asian Mariner) Vessel or any other vessels or other properties belong to the defendants. That suit was filed so...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam R. Gogavale Vs. Gujarat Agriculture University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR687]
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the action of the respondents terminating services of the petitioners and a further prayer is also made that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioners to discharge the services and to draw their salaries pending hearing and final disposal of the petition.2. This Court passed an order on 15/10/1990 issuing notice and it was directed to maintain status-quo. Thereafter, the petition was admitted and the interim order directing status-quo was continued. When this petition comes up for final hearing, on behalf of the respondents, an affidavit in sur-rejoinder has been filed by one G.B.Shah, Administrative Officer, Gujarat Agricultural University wherein it is stated as under:'Both the petitioners appeared for interview in 1989 & 90. Petitioner No.2 has been selected and his name is in the Select List at Sr.No.6 among the Scheduled Caste candidates. Petitioner No.1 has not been selected for regular appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Precious Carrying Corporation and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR74
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Precious Carrying Corporation Pvt. Ltd., & others, petitioners have filed this petition with a prayer that respondent No. 1-Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2-Director of Prohibition, Ahmedabad, and respondent No. 3-Co!lector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad be restrained from interfering with the trucks owned by the first petitioner and or hired by them from passing through the territory of Gujarat with liquor-loaded therein for the purpose of delivery thereof in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners also challenged the validity of Rule 10 of the Gujarat Through Transport Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the ground that said rule do not impose reasonable restrictions nor restrictions are in public interest and even on this ground the said Rules violate the guarantee of free trade, commerce throughout the territory of India as guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution of India.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(102)LC756(Gujarat)
D.A. Mehta, J1. Rule. Mr. M.R. Shah, learned standing counsel appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today.2. The petitioner, a public limited company, has approached this Court against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) whereby the Tribunal allowed the departmental appeal and also rejected the rectification of mistake application filed by the petitioner. Incidentally, the petitioner has also challenged the vires of provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the said contention has not been pressed on behalf of the petitioner.3. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner became entitled to refund of Rs. 50,16,829.26 in relation to Methane produced and captively consumed by the petitioner. The petitioner was sanctioned the said refund some time in 1997. However, the thi...
Tag this Judgment!National Labour Union Vs. Official Liquidator of Aarthi Petro-chemical ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR764
ORDERS20. In view of the above discussion, Company Application Nos. 66, 67 and 68 of 1993 are dismissed with a clarification that this judgment does not preclude the Official Liquidator from exercising his powers and discharging his duties under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and in following the properties of the Companies in liquidation wherever they have gone. The ad interim/interim stay granted by this Court earlier in these applications stands vacated. 21. It is further clarified that since the ad interim stay is vacated and the execution Court will proceed in accordance with law, any deposit of the monies lying before the City Civil Court or appropriation thereof by the concerned creditors shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Official Liquidatorto take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law insofar as the properties of the Company in liquidation are concerned. 22. In view of the above order, Company Application No. 248 of 2000 filed by Bank of In...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Natvarlal Ambalal Vs. Sales Tax Officer (i)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC130(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. Both these matters are interconnected and involve common questions and are, therefore, disposed of together.2. In Special Civil Application No. 3343 of 1984, the petitioners were partners of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal, a firm doing business of selling tea at Mehsana. According to the petitioners, up to November 4, 1975, only the petitioners Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were the partners and from November 4, 1975, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 joined the firm in their capacity as kartas of their respective HUFs. The petitioners have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1, Sales Tax Officer, against them and the proclamations at annexures A/1, A/2 and A/6 to A/10 under Section 165 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, for public auction of the properties which were attached for realisation of the sales tax dues on the basis of the garnishee provisions of Section 48 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The respondent No. 1 had proceeded against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(81)ECC47; 2004(171)ELT160(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Mr. D.N. Patel, learned standing Counsel appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel, the petitions are heard finally today.2. In both these petitions the petitioners have challenged the stand of the excise department as regards operation of the compounded levy scheme which pertains to levy and collection of Central Excise based on capacity to manufacture as applicable for the period commencing from 1-5-2001 to 31-3-2002. It is a common ground between the parties that the issues are identical and except for the figures, there is no difference in relation to the facts in the two petitions. Hence, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to only the facts as narrated in SCA No. 10588 of 2001.3. The compounded levy scheme was introduced by Notification No. 16/01-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-4-2001. The petitioner company filed an application in the prescribed form and contended that the investment in plant and machiner...
Tag this Judgment!indo-nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC657; 2005(185)ELT19(Guj); (2002)3GLR8
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh R. Shah waives service of Rule.2. The petitioner-company is manufacturing plasticizers. The petitioner Company has been taking the MODVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs received by its factory for manufacture of goods to be cleared for home consumption as well as for export.3. The petitioner-company is aggrieved by the orders of the respondent-Central Excise Authorities in retaining the benefit of Rs. 41,18,212/- alleged to have been illegally accrued in favour of the revenue. According to the petitioner company, MODVAT credit for the aggregate amount mentioned above was rightly taken, but under mutual mistake, both of the petitioner as manufacturer and the respondent Authorities, the said MODVAT credit was reversed in February/ March, 1995. The petitioner company as well as the respondents were totally oblivious of Public Notice No. 6 of 1995 issued by the Central Government on 9-1-1.995 and which was published in 1st March issue of Excis...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Iqbal Vs. K.R. Sehgal, Supdt. of Customs and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(87)ECC672; (2002)4GLR3153
D.P. Buch, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') challenging the Judgment and order recorded against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case of the original complainant against the present petitioner may be briefly stated as follows.2. The Customs Department had some previous information that the present petitioner would be arriving at Ahmedabad International Airport on 30.1.1996 in the evening flight coming from Sharjah and he would be carrying gold either in his person or in his baggage. The petitioner actually arrived in the aforesaid flight on 30.1.1996 from Sharjah at Ahmedabad International Airport. It was noticed that at initial stage he did not disclose that he was carrying gold with him. However, on account of the aforesaid information the petitioner was taken to the x-ray machine room. There also he did not initially admit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »