Gujarat Court May 2002 Judgments
Mahendra and Mahendra Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1024; 2003(26)PTC434(Guj)
A.M. Kapadia, J. 1. What is challenged in these three Appeals from Orders which are filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short), are three separate orders all dated September 15, 1999 recorded below application Exh. 6, notice of motion, in Civil Suit No. 5319 of 1996, 5321 of 1996 and 5320 of 1996 by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Court No. 25, Ahmedabad, by which application Exh. 6, notice of motion, in all the aforementioned suits seeking ad-interim injunction under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code in terms of Paras 18(a), (b) and (c) of the application till disposal of the suits moved by the respondent against the appellant came to be allowed and temporary injunction in terms of Paras 18(a), (b) and (c) of the application is granted till final disposal of the suits on merits. 2. As these three A.O.s. involve determination of common question of law and facts, by the consent of the learned Advocates appearing f...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Shri B.B. Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR256
K.A. Puj, J.1. This First Appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat against the judgment & order dated 17.01.1990 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge [S.D.], Vadodara rejecting Civil Misc. Application No. 151 of 1989 filed by the State of Gujarat for setting aside the award made by the Arbitrator on 21.07.1989 under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act in the Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1989 and also making the award as a `rule of court' in the Special Civil suit No. 434 of 1989.2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Court passed a decree modifying the award passed by the arbitrator to the extent of reducing the interest for some period.3. For appreciating the contentions raised in this appeal, it will be appropriate to state few facts pertaining to the disputes raised between the parties.The work of constructing of Up-stream parapet wall on top of earthen dam of Sukhi reservoir project was entrusted to the respondent vide L.C.B. Agreement No. 8/1987-88 a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Laxmanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3127
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order dated 8th March, 1999 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 208 of 1998, by which the appellant is convicted under Sections 8(C) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`the NDPS Act' for short) and punished with R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One lac Only), in default to undergo R.I. for six months.2. The name of Mr. Mehul S. Shah was notified as the learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shah produced a letter dated 16th March, 2002 addressed to the appellant, seeking his instructions as to whether he has to conduct the matter or the appellant wants to engage another advocate. Mr. Shah has also produced a xerox copy of a post card dated 25th March, 2002 addressed to him by the appellant. Mr. Shah submitted that as indicated in that post card...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikrishna K. Yadav Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR578
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. Admit, service of which is waived by Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Jayant P. Bhatt, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 7.2. The appellants who are the original petitioners have approached this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment of the Judge (Coram : P.B. Majmudar, J.), dated 3rd My, 2001 delivered in Special Civil Application No. 3183 of 1994. In the said petition, the appellants had prayed for reliefs viz., to quash and set aside circular dated 15th May, 1993 by declaring it to be violative of constitutional provisions; to restrain the respondents from holding the qualifying examination till all the candidates named in the list at Annexure 'A' to the petition are given actual promotion to the post of Head Constable, Grade-II; to promote all the petitioners to the post of Head Constable, Grade-II with all consequential benefits; to issue direction to respondents not to appoint any candi...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chhababhai Vallabhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR193(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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in passing order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1980-81 in respect of which the assessment of the assessee family trust was completed on November 24, 1980, determining the total income at Rs. 7,03,490. One-half of that income, i.e., Rs. 3,51,745, was taxed in the hands of 25 beneficiaries as per Clause 3(B)(i)(a)of the trust deed dated April 23, 1979, shown in Schedule I thereto and the other 50 per cent., i.e., Rs. 3,51,745, was assessed in the hands of the trustees of the assessee-trust under Section 161 of the said Act on the respective share of each of the beneficiaries mentioned in Clause 3(B)(i)(b) of the trust deed and Schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Envision Engineering Vs. SachIn Infa Enviro Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj164; (2002)3GLR379
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. What is challenged in this Appeal From Order filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) is the order dated May 5, 2001 recorded below application Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 350 of 2000 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)., Surat by which application Exh. 5 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code by appellant against respondents restraining them from committing breach of the terms and conditions of the tender and consequential right existing in favour of the appellant and further to restrain the respondents from assigning to anyone the construction work of Common Effluent Treatment Plant ('C.E.T.P.' for short) of Sachin Infa-Enviro Limited, respondent No. 1, till disposal of the suit, came to be rejected, and thereby, the interim injunction granted earlier has been vacated.2. Appellant is the original plaintiff whereas respondents are the original defendants and for the sake of convenience and brevity, they shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmanbhai Karmanbha Gadhavi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR440
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. K.C. Shah waives service of Rule for respondent-State of Gujarat.3. Misc. Criminal Application Nos. 9213, 9214 and 9216 of 2001 are filed by the applicant-Laxmanbhai Karmanbha Gadhvi original complainant. Whereas, Misc. Criminal Application Nos. 9249, 9250 and 9251 of 2001 are filed by the State of Gujarat. All these applications are filed against impugned common judgment and order dated 9-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Bhuj below Misc. Criminal Application Nos. 213, 230 and 231 of 2001 filed by the respondents-accused whereby the learned Judge released the respondents-accused on bail on certain terms and conditions mentioned in it. This impugned common judgment and order of bail has been challenged by the original complainant as well as State of Gujarat in all these applications, as stated earlier.4. Initially, notice was ordered to be issued in all these matters b...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Ravjibhai Chhotabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR538
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. The State of Gujarat and others have preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge [Coram : B.C. Patel, J.] dated 16-6-2000 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 2206 of 1986, whereby the learned Judge has decided question regarding the possession of the land forming subject-matter of this proceeding in favour of the respondents and has disposed of the petition on the ground of it having abated in light of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Some relevant facts necessary for the present proceedings can be stated as under :- 2.1. Late Smt. Javerben, wife of Somabhai Mohanbhai owned agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 660/2 admeasuring H. 0-01-01 Are and agricultural land bearing Survey No. 662 admeasuring H. 0-46-54 Are in villageKapurai in District Vadodara, The said lands were bequeathed by late Smt. Javerben to h...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chhababhai Vallabhai Patel Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)498
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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Officer was justified in passing order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The matter pertains to assessment year 1980-81 in respect of which the assessment of the assessee family trust was completed on 24-11-1980, determining the total income at Rs. 7,03,490. One half of that income i.e., Rs. 3,51,745 was taxed in the hands of 25 beneficiaries as per clause 3(B)(i)(a) of the trust deed, dated 23-4-1979, shown in Schedule I thereto and the other 50 per cent i.e., Rs. 3,51,745 was assessed in the hands of the trustees of the assessee-trust under section 161 of the said Act on the respective share of each of the beneficiaries mentioned in clause 3(B)(i)(b) of the trust deed and Schedule II thereto.2.1. In the trust deed, it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sonam Textile (P) Ltd. Vs. S.K.S. Rawat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)227
R.K. Abichandani, J.Rule. Learned advocate Mr. B.B. Naik waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. The petition is heard finally at the instance of both sides since it involves a very short point.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner-II, Surat, has rejected the petitioners application by the impugned order, dated 19-3-2001, for restoring the revision application to file. It is submitted that the authorities have been ignoring a Division Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Harsidh Construction (P) Ltd. (2000) 16 DTC 152 (Guj) : (2000) 242 ITR 417 in which it was held that when tax deducted at source under the provisions of section 194C of the Act was deposited in the government account well within prescribed time and there was no loss of revenue, but only a failure to forward the certificate, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act in view of the bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee. It is state...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »