Gujarat Court February 2002 Judgments
Gandaji Lakhaji Deac. thro' his Legal Heirs Vs. Sp. Land Acquisition O ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3109
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these appeals are decided by this common judgment as they are arising out of impugned common judgment and award dated 11.7.2001 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.289 to 301 of 1995 (main Reference Case No.289/95). Deputy General Manager (ONGC), Ahmedabad submitted his proposal to acquire lands of village Pinglaj of taluka Matar, Dist.Kheda for the purpose of D-Solter plant by letter dated 26.12.1990 addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (ONGC), Ahmedabad. Section 4 notification came to be published under the Land Acquisition Act on 15.9.1992 followed by notification under Section 6 dated 14.7.1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed market price of the lands @Rs.8/= and Rs.10/= per sq.mtr., and for Kharabha land he fixed Rs.1/= per sq.mtr. The said award was passed under Section 11 on 31.3.1995.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the appellants-claimants filed aforesaid reference ...
Tag this Judgment!Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Pravinchandra Bhogilal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ1072Guj
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the legality and validity of the award dated September 4, 2000 passed by the Labour Court at Vadodara in Ref (LCV) No. 2/91 whereby the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent- workman with 75% back wages and other consequential benefits.2. Short facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent was working with the petitioner as the stores-clerk in the finished goods stores department. The petitioner is an Engineering Company engaged in the manufacturing of gaskets and radiators. The petitioner is also exporting the goods to foreign countries. As per the petitioner, it was the duty of the respondent-workman to get checked and prepared the consignments which were to be despatched to parties at foreign countries and in me present case three consignments which were to be despatched to one Premier Parts and Industrial Supplies Corporation, Philippines was not supervised by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Gujco Carriers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR50(Guj)
R.K.Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent, or even at the rate of 30 per cent, on crane mounted on motor truck ?' 2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee had purchased for Rs. 10,87,248 a mobile crane on November 19, 1981, and claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,34,898 at the rate of 40 per cent, thereon stating that it was used in the business of running it on hire and so, it will fall under entry No. IIIE(1A) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This was mentioned in the statement of total income filed along with the returns for the assessment year 1982-83. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to state reasons why depreciation at the general r...
Tag this Judgment!Gujco Carriers Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Guj)324
Judgment R.K. Abichandani, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent or even at the rate of 30 per cent on crane mounted on motor truck ?'2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee had purchased for Rs. 10,87,248 a mobile crane on 19-11-1981, and claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,34,898 at the rate of 40 per cent thereon stating that it was used in the business of running it on hire and so, it will fall under clause E(IA) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This was mentioned in the statement of total income filed along with the returns for the assessment year 1982-83.3. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to state reasons why depreciation at the general rate of 10 per cent applicable to machinery an...
Tag this Judgment!Alembic Ltd. Vs. Dipak Kumar J. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas64(Guj); (2002)4GLR3118
ORDER42. The petition is accordingly allowed and the sanction is granted to the scheme of arrangement and restructure at annexure C to the petition. The prayer in terms of para. 21(a) is granted. 43. The petitioner-company shall pay the fees of the learned additional standing counsel for the Central Government which are quantified at Rs. 2,500. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krupaben B. Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1631
ORDER The tenure of Smt. Krupaben B. Trivedi, as the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, is brought to an end with immediate effect. By the order of and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat. (R. A. Dave) Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (rendered into English from Gujarati) 9. The learned single Judge, by the order under Appeal, rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the Statutory Rules do not regulate the terms and conditions of a person appointed as Tribunal from Bar. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion as under :'..... In view of the statutory provision governing the service conditionof the petitioner, the Government could not have prescribed the term of appointment which was contrary to the statutory provision. If such a contract has been entered into, the same being contrary to the statutory provisions, shall have no binding effect and the statutory provision shall prevail over the terms and conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharad Narandas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR643(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The original Income-tax Reference No. 73 of 1987, which related to five assessment years, namely, 1978-79 to 1982-83 arising out of five appeals (I. T.A. Nos. 1842 to 1846) decided by the Tribunal is ordered to be split up into five references. They are numbered as Income-tax References Nos. 73, 73A, 73B, 73C and 73D of 1987 for the respective years 1978-79 to 1982-83. 2. The Tribunal has referred the following question in these references for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, in law and on facts, the income of the Sharad Family Trust was taxable in the hands of the assessee ?'3. Reference No. 100 of 1987 (arising from two Appeals Nos. 122 and 123 of 1985) is directed to be split up into two references, namely, Nos. 100 and 100A of 1987, in respect of the two assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court in those references : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarabhai Chemical P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR747(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law is referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deletion of Rs. 4,726 and Rs. 3,544 being interest on deferred sale consideration was justified ?'2. While framing the assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82, the Income-tax Officer has brought to tax an amount of Rs. 4,726 being the interest on deferred sale consideration charged at the rate of 11 per cent. per annum. The Income-tax Officer has observed in his assessment order that there was a clear distinction between the facts as prevalent in the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and in the present assessment year, i.e., 1981-82, in so far as even as per the modified agreement interest was payable with effect from July 1, 1979. The Income-tax Officer has also observed that interest was chargeable for the reasons mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR294(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. Income-tax Reference No. 102 of 1987 is arising out of R. A. Nos. 904 and 905/Ahd of 1985 preferred by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. These two reference applications are, in turn, arising out of I. T. A. Nos. 216 and 231/Ahd of 1982 which were filed by the assessee as well as the Department before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for the assessment year 1973-74. Since the present Income-tax Reference No. 102 of 1987 is arising out of two separate reference applications, it is ordered to be split up in Income-tax References Nos. 102 and 102A of 1987.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in upholding the claim of the assessee for investment allowance on compound walls and fencing ?2. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 1,84,197 being guest house expenses is not disallowable under Section 37...
Tag this Judgment!Devuben Jayatbhai Jalu Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR720
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, at the instance of the original applicants who had filed an application for compensation under section 110-A of the said Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot, rejected the petition in toto, basically on the finding that the Insurance policy in question did not cover the risk of the deceased Jayatabhai Jalu, whose death gave rise to the claim in question.2. In order to apply the correct principles of law, it is necessary first to retain focus on certain basic facts as they appear in the present case. The following facts are either undisputed or undisputable.[i] The deceased Jayantbhai Jalu was the owner of a truck which was registered and used as a public carrier.[ii] On the date of the accident the owner himself was behind the steering wheel of the said truck and was effectively the driver of the said truck.[iii] The truck, while proceeding at a reasonable and safe speed on the roa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »