Gujarat Court April 2002 Judgments
Silk Museum Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)604
R.K. Abichandani, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in not following settled legal position and established law on the said subject of rules, practice and procedure of evidence, natural justice and fairplay while confirming the addition of Rs, 1,40,000 relying upon 'inadmissible evidence' and ignoring 'undisputed evidence' adduced by the assessee ?'2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee was a partnership firm dealing in sarees at Rajkot and doing its business since 1-11-1979. The assessee filed return of its income on 17-7-1981. During the assessment proceedings, the department came in possession of some information to the effect that for acquiring the business premises on rent, the assessee-firm had paid certain amount by way of 'pagri'. As recorded in para. 5 o...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator of Dhavalgiri Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chinubhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR890; [2003]46SCL103(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. By way of Judge's Summons taken out under Section543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), the Official Liquidatorhas prayed for an order that : '(a) For a declaration that the respondents-Directors of the above-named Company were guilty of misfeasance, breach of trust, breach of duty, gross negligence in discharging their duties and managing the affairs of the Company. (b) For a declaration that the respondents-Directors of the above Company, have misapplied, retained or became liable or accountable for the money or property of the Company. (c) For an order that all necessary inquiries be made and accounts taken for ascertaining what sums the respondents are liable to contribute to the assets of the said Company by way of compensation for such misfeasance and breach of trust aforesaid, (d) For an order that the respondents-Directors do jointly and severally contribute to the assets of the said Company and do pay to the Official Liquidator of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Jiteshkumar V. Chotai Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR486
D.S. Sinha, C.J.1. Heard Mr. J.R. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Upadhyay and Mr. G. M. Josh:, learned Counsels representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.2. By means of instant Special Civil Application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instituted in the year 1991, the petitioner seeks to challenge the decision of the Advisory Committee, rendered on 27th November, 1987, in the matter of selection by promotion to the post of English Stenographer, Grade-I, in the Rajkot District Judgeship.3. In the selection in question, the petitioner was one of the four candidates. It is not in dispute that he was eligible for consideration at the selection which was on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.4. Out of the four candidates eligible for consideration for promotion, the petitioner was senior-most, and if otherwise found unfit on merits, would have been entitled to be selected being senior-most. But, before the Committee, there was materi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Anilkumar M. Virani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR81(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the house property was used for residential purpose and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, so as to have the property valued as of April 1, 1971 ?'2. The matter pertains to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 in respect of which, in the returns of wealth for these three years, the assessee took up a stand that the value of the house property should be taken in the assessment year 1971-72 at Rs. 2,17,400, and not as per the valuation report at Rs. 9,34,650. The Wealth-tax Officer, holding that the assessee was a non-resident and the property was not occupied by him for the whole year, held that Section 7(4) of the said Act was n...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Tyre House and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: I(2004)BC63; (2003)1GLR18
D.P. Buck, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing Criminal Case No. 96 of 2002 filed by respondent No. 2, herein, against the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as well as for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad City. The facts of the case of the said Criminal Case No. 96 of 2002 may be briefly stated as follows :2. That, petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. It is alleged in the complaint before the trial Court that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein together and with the helpof each other are running business in the name and style of petitioner No. 1. It is also alleged in the complaint that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are carrying on business of sale of tyres and allied products from their business premises as m...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Corporation Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC268(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the article, viz., 'electrocom juicer' is a domestic electrical appliance and would be covered by entry 92 in Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the said article would not be covered by entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the said Act even though the article could be used for manufacturing of goods to an extent ?2. The original applicant had made an application for determination under Section 62 of the said Act for determining as to what tax was payable in respect of 'electrocom juicer' which the applicant purchased from outside the State of Gujarat and sold within the State. A...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Anilkumar M. Virani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)412
R.K. Abichandani, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the house property was used for residential purpose and therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 so as to have the property valued as on 1-4-1971 ?'2. The matter pertains to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 in respect of which, in the returns of 'wealth-tax for these two years, the assessee took up a stand that the value of the house property should be taken in the assessment year 1971-72 at Rs. 2,17,400, and not' as per the valuation report at Rs. 9,34,650. The Wealth Tax Officer, holding that the assessee was a non-resident and the property was not occupied by him for the whole year, held that section 7(4) of the said Act was not applicable to him, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Bhalchandra Jani Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1050]; (2002)2GLR1379
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.S. Vasavada, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.G. Doshit, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent-Board.2. In the present petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference No. 612 of 1984 dated 2nd March, 1993. Initially, this Court has issued Rule and expedited hearing of the matter by order dated 27th October, 1993. On behalf of the respondent, affidavit-in-reply has been filed, against which rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner and same are on record.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner-workman has submitted that the Labour Court has committed gross error in rejecting the Reference of the petitioner on the ground that he was not working on a permanent post of Tracer and he has not completed continuous service of 240 days in a year, and therefore, Section 25-F is not required to be complied with. Mr. Vasavada, learne...
Tag this Judgment!Popatlal Gokaldas Shah and anr. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ422; AIR2003Guj44; (2002)3GLR327
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Popatlal Gokaldas Shah and others, appellants original plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 29th October, 1999, passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 6387 of 1987. The learned Judge by his impugned judgment has held that plaintiffs proved that deceased Jayeshkumar received injuries resulting into death while taking bath in the swimming pool on account of negligence of the defendant-Corporation in maintaining the swimming pool. The plaintiffs are entitled to compensation. However, the learned Judge has held that the Corporation has been able to prove that the suit is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge further held that even if Section 487 of the Act is not applicable as per Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the incident...
Tag this Judgment!Popat Khima Ramani (Decd.) Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Collector and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR408
ORDER31. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed :-I The petition is dismissed insofar as the petitioners have challenged the first part of the orders of the Collector and the Principal Secretary setting aside entry No. 3635. However, the revenue authorities shall not delete or cancel other subsequent entries regarding sale of portions of the land described hereinafter, until the final outcome of Civil Suit No. 892 of 1998 pending before the Civil Court at Rajkot. II However, the petition is allowed insofar as the petitioners have challenged the second part of the orders of the Collector and the Principal Secretary by which the subordinate revenue authorities are directed to take steps for mutating the name of respondent No. 4 as the owner of the land in question; That part of the orders of both the authorities is set aside. III It is clarified that as and when any party makes, or more than one party make, application/s for mutating their names in Village Form No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »