Gujarat Court February 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Panna Knitting Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)616
In the Gujarat High Court R.K. Abichandani & K.A. Puj, JJ. Judgment K.A. PUJ, J.The Tribunal, in IT Ref. No. 28 of 1987, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act should be allowed from the total income which is not confined to the income of the (new) units ?'2. Similarly, in IT Ref. No. 164 of 1988 for the assessment year 1982-83, the following question of law was raised by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act should be allowed from the total income (which is not confined to the income) of the new units ?'3. Since a common issue is involved in both t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Bai Sudha W/O. Kadia Bhikhabhai Atmaram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR2810
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This matter was listed before us on 25-1-2002. Mr. Sen, learned A.G.P., argued the same for a considerable time, but he was not having copy of evidence of all the witnesses with him. At his request, we kept it today. Today, Mr. Sen produced before us the relevant material for our consideration.2. Respondent-plaintiff-Bai Sudha filed Special Civil Suit No. 135 of 1996 before the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the ground of failure of family planning operation, which she undergone on 15-2-1992 at Government Dispensary, Vijapur. According to her, her husband is a labourer and she is mother of five children having two sons and three daughters. After undergoing the family planning operation on 15-2-1992, she once again conceived and against her will she gave birth to another male child on 2-9-1994. Therefore, she has filed suit for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.3. In support of her case, she has examined Dr. Rame...
Tag this Judgment!Harsutrai J. Raval Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN165(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court under 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 capital gain of Rs. 19,018 was exigible to tax 'The assessee in respect of the previous year which was Samvat Year 2036 (29-10-1979 to 7-11-1980, relevant to assessment year 1981-82), had filed return of income on 20-6-1981 declaring income of Rs. 29,650. The assessee's income was from salary, house property, honorarium from the Municipal Corporation and short-term capital gain on the sale of building.2. On 23-3-1979, the assessee had purchased a new house for Rs. 45,000 on which he spent Rs. 9,650 and sold it on 14-5-1980 for Rs. 55,000 claiming deduction of Rs. 54,650 and he paid tax on capital gain amount of Rs. 350. The Income Tax Officer noticed that in the earlier assessment year 1980-81, the assessee was given exemption of Rs. 19,01...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., (Part Ii) Vs. Surat Municipal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1425
Kundan Singh, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent - Surat Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent' for the sake of brevity and convenience) to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the land in question admeasuring 3166 sq. mtrs. of final Plot No. 36 of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 36 (Althan) and to grant development permission in toto as prayed for in the application dated 9-2-2000 and to quash and set aside the action of the respondent-Corporation of continuing their possession over the land in question as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and against the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning& Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for short).2. The petitioner is a registered co-operative society and has purchased the land bearing Survey Nos. 77, 79/1/P (at present block No. 96) situated at village Althan in the year 1981 at the auction held by the competent authority a...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Bavanjibhai Posiya and ors. Vs. Director of Agriculture Market ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj348; (2002)2GLR1132
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. All these cases have been placed for hearing and decision before this Full Bench of Three Judges, on the order of reference made by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 7278 of 2001 and 5120 of 2001 on 27-9-2001.2. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 arises out of an order of status quo passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9842 of 2001. Special Civil Application No. 5120 of 2001 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 are cognate matters concerning moving and passing of no-confidence motion against the Chairman of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Valsad. Special Civil Application No. 7278 of 2001 is also concerning moving and passing of no-confidence motion against the Chairman of Junagadh Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1451 of 1997 is concerning moving and passing of no-confidence motion against the Chairman of Social Justice Committee under Section 123 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Charity Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Guj)161; [2002]255ITR586(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. This court, vide its order dated November 7, 1985, in Income-tax Application No. 195 of 1985, preferred by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had directed the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. is not a concern in which the persons referred to in Section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have substantial interest and hence dividend income from the shares of that company is exempt under Section 11 of the Act?2. Whether the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that Section 13(3) is not applicable to the funds diverted to Smt. Saraladevi Sarabhai or Karamchand Fremchand Pvt. Ltd., to the extent of Rs. 68,942 and hence exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be denied ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circ...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Mills Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas654(Guj); (2003)4GLR276
M.S. Shah, J. 1. This is an application filed by the official liquidator of Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Company Limited (in liquidation) under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act', for short) by which the official liquidator has prayed for a declaration that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein who were directors of the company in liquidation at the relevant time had misapplied, retained and became liable and accountable for the monies or properties of the company and that they were guilty of misfeasance, breach of trust, breach of duty, gross negligence in discharging their duties and managing the affairs of the company and for various other ancillary reliefs.2. The above-named company was ordered to be wound up as per this court's order dated October 27, 1989. The official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as its official liquidator, who has filed the present application. As per this court's directions, the official liquidator appointed M/s. Vibhakar J. Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Ranjan Sinha Vs. Manojbhai Bhaishankar Chandaliya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3229; (2002)4GLR3700
C.K. Buch, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr.P.V.Nanavati appearing for petitioners and Mr.Ketan Dave, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - original complainant, so also Mr.V.M.Pancholi, learned APP for respondent No.2 - State.2. The petitioners are accused of private complaint filed by the respondent in the Court of JMFC, Palitana for the offence punishable under Section 500 and 34 of IPC being Criminal Case No.1417 / 2000. Learned Magistrate has issued process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted by the petitioners that this Court by exercising the jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should quash complaint and process issued by the Magistrate of concerned trial court. It is say of the petitioners that if the complaint is closely read, no ingredients of Section 500 or Section 34 are satisfied in reference to Section 94 of IPC, where defamation within the meaning of IPC is defined and explained with exceptions. This Court has carefully considered the averments made i...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Charity Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Guj)313
K.A. Puj, J.This court, vide its order dated 7-11-1985, in IT AppIn. No. 195 of 1985, preferred by the revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1956, had directed the, Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions for our opinion :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Prtg. CO. Ltd, is not a concern in which persons referred to in section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has substantial interest and hence dividend income from the shares of that company is exempt under section 11 of the Act ?'2. 'Whether the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that section 13(3) is not applicable to the funds diverted to Smt. Saraladevi Sarabhai or M/s Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 68,942 and hence exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be denied ?'3. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, th...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3220
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Both the petitioners were serving at the relevant time as Executive Engineers and after conclusion of the departmental enquiry, both of them were removed from service. The said action is impugned in the present Special Civil Applications. Since the issues involved in both these petitions are common, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is required to be noted that by an Order dated 16-11-1992, both the petitioners were removed from the post of Executive Engineer. At the time of admitting these matters, the said removal Order was stayed by this Court. Accordingly, both the petitioners are protected by way of interim relief. During the pendency of the Special Civil Applications, the interim relief remained in force till today and, in the meanwhile, both the petitioners have retired on attaining the age of superannuation.3. So far as Special Civil Application No. 1879 of 1994 is concerned, the petitioner has retired by way of superannuatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »