Gujarat Court April 2002 Judgments
Gani Mamad Bhagad Vagher Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(87)ECC57; (2002)4GLR3189
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 directed against the Judgment and order dated 30.9.1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Sessions Case No. 5 of 1997 by which the appellant is convicted under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') (conviction is to be read to be under Section 20 of the NDPS Act) and punished him rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default simple imprisonment for one year.2. On 20.1.1997, between 9.50 to 11.30 pm, the complainant of this case raided the residential premises of accused No. 1 situated in Juma Masjid Chowk at Bedi area of Distrjct Jamnagar and recovered 168 grams of Charas from the room, of Accused No. 1, from below the mattress and the pillow on the cot, which was alleged to have been purchased by Accused No. 1 from Accused No. 2. Both the accused had thus, indu...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind D. Chokshi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR2862
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr. MR Barot learned Senior Counsel with Mr. SG Amin for the applicant and Mr MR Shah learned counsel for respondent no. 2 (Ori. complainant) in extensio.2. This Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the applicant-Arvind D. Chokshi, who is neither an accused nor a witness of prosecution mentioned in the complaint filed by respondent no. 2. The applicant preferred an application dated 4.4.2001 under sec. 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC' for short) for the release of goods seized from the applicant by the respondent no. 2 on 28.3.200 before the Ld. Special Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Crime No. RC.2(E)/2001/BS & FC/Mumbai under investigation with C.B.I., Mumbai. After hearing the counsel appearing for the applicant and CBI, learned Special Judge vide order dated 21.5.2001 rejected the application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 662/2001.3. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Khorajiya Dawoodbhai Sulaiman and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj1; (2002)2GLR1821
M.S. Shah, J. 1. Leave to delete respondent No. 3 in both the petitions in view of the oral request made by Mr. Vahkharia.Rule. Mr. H.C. Patel, learned A.G.P. waives service of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Special Civil Application No. 3503 of 2002 is filed by two elected members of Vaghdod taluka panchayat. At the hearing, the petitioners also claim through their learned Counsel Mr. M.K. Vakharia that the petition is filed on behalf of 12 other elected members of Vaghdod taluka panchayat. Special Civil Application No. 3508 of 2002 is filed by the Patan taluka panchayat and its President.3. Prior to October, 1997, there was one unified taluka known as Patan taluka. By Notification dated 15-10-1997 Patan taluka was bifurcated into Patan taluka and Vaghdod taluka. Pursuant to the notifications issued under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, separate taluka panchayats were established for Patan taluka and for Vaghdod taluka. Elections to the Vaghdod taluka panchayat were held in Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.G. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR109(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:R. A. No. 781/Ahd of 1987.At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax :'(1) Whether, the cost of plant and machinery under erection as also the cost of building under construction was to be included in the capital base for purposes of deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' R. A. No. 782/Ahd of 1987.At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax :'(ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of the amount paid as a result of the fluctuation in exchange rate ?'R. A. No, 804/Ahd of 1987.At the instance of the assessee :'(iii) Whether the amount of Rs. 28,79,813 claimed by way of exchange loss consequent to the fluctuation in exchange rate was allowable as a deduction ?'2. So far as question No (i) is concerned, the Income-tax Officer has rejected the assessee's claim to the effect that th...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Niranjan Bhatt Vs. Commissioner, Public Provident Fund Scheme and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj417; (2002)3GLR789
ORDERP.B. Majumdar, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the petitioner No. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of necessary writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondents to pay to the petitioners the amount lying in P.P.F. Account No. 3740/ 29 which is in the name of late Agastya, the minor son of the petitioners who unfortunately died in an accidental death. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the parents of deceased Agastya. The petitioner No. 1 as the father and natural guardian of his minor son Agastya had opened a PPF Account No. 3740/29 in the name of Agastya Amar Bhatt. A Saving Bank Account No. 12828 was also opened in the name of minor Agastya which was operated by the petitioner No. 1 as father and natural guardian of his son. A copy of the Passbook bearing Account No. 3740/29 issued by the respondent No. 2 for the aforesaid P.P.F. Account is annexed at Annexure B to the petition.2. Unfortunately, the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. AlpIn Industries and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ329; (2002)3GLR713
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Desai for the State and learned Counsel Mr. Ravani for the respondents-accused.2. This appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat on behalf of Bharatkumar Hariprasad Trivedi - original complainant - Drug Inspector of the Commissioner of Food & Drugs Control Administration, Mehsana, against the order of discharge recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kalol in Criminal Case No. 1679 of 1996 on 30-6-1999.3. Respondents-accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for violating the provisions of Section 18(A)(i) of the Act. According to complainant, he had drawn sample of Fymacetine Skin Cream, having Batch No. 2590 on 27-3-1995 from the Medical Stores of D/1, Kamdar Rajya Vima Yojna, Kalol, having manufacturing date September 1994 and expiry date August 1996. The Central Medical Stores of Ahmedabad had supplied this medicine to the Med...
Tag this Judgment!Navsari District Panchayat and anr. Vs. Sumanbhai Morarbhai Patel and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR5
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. M. G. Doshit, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. M. Pandit, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 - workman as well as Mr. H. D. Dave, learned A.G.P., for respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 28th January, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Navsari in Reference (L.C.N.) No. 28 of 1985 wherein, the Labour Court has set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages of interim period. Learned Advocate Mr. Doshit on behalf of the petitioner has mainly raised two contentions before this Court. The first contention is the Panchayat is sovereign function of the State, and therefore, Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to the petitioner. The second contention is that the respondent-workman has an alternative effective statutory remedy of an Appeal available under the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal Act, 1972, but the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Hazarat Pir Shah-e-alam
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)523
R.K. Abichandani, J.In the WT Ref. No. 60/1987, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1980-81 :'Whether the assessee is a public charitable trust entitled for exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act ?'The assessee Hazarat Pir Shah-E-Alam Roza Estate Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'Roza Estate Trust) was found in the survey operation undertaken by the department not to have filed any wealth-tax returns for the various years under consideration. The wealth-tax was of the view that the assessee-Roza Estate Trust had a substantial taxable wealth, and therefore, it issued notice under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act. Since there was no response to the notice, the Wealth Tax Officer proceeded to frame the assessment under section 16(5) of the Act.2. In the WT Ref. No. 63 of 1987, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the assessment years 1972-73 ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. S.G. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)618
R.K. Abichandani, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :R.A. No. 781/Ahd/1987At the instance of the Commissioner :(i) Whether, the cost of plant and machinery under erection as also the cost of building under construction was to be included in the capital base for purposes of deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961?R.A. No. 782/Ahd/1987At the instance of the Commissioner :(ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of the amount paid as a result of the fluctuation in exchange rate?R.A. No. 804/Ahd/1987At the instance of the assessee :(iii) Whether the amount of Rs, 28,79,813 claimed by way of exchange loss consequent to the fluctuation in exchange rate was allowable as a deduction?2. So far as question No. (i) is concerned, the Income Tax Officer has rejected the assessee's claim to the effect that the plant and machinery under erection and building under construction should ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hazarat Pir Shah-e-alam Roza Estate Tru ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR193(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. This reference arises from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench, passed in a group of 20 appeals related to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1973-74, in which the controversy before us revolved around the issue as to whether the income from the lands in question was the income of the Hazarat Pir Shah-E-Alam Roza Estate Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Roza Trust') assessable in the hands of the said trust and exempt under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), or whether it was assessable in the hands of the Sajjadanashin of the Trust Saiyed Musamiya as income from his private property.2. The Tribunal has concluded that the lands in question were wakf properties belonging to the Roza Trust, and that the exemption under Section 11 of the said Act was available to the assessee-Roza Trust, provided the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. It was held that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »