Gujarat Court July 2002 Judgments
Raijibhai Shanabhai Vaghri Vs. Gokaldas Vrujlal Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR410
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Short but important question of law arises in this petition is, 'Whether the petitioner had remedy under Section 84 or 29 of the Tenancy Act'?2. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He had filed an application in the year 1975 before the Court of Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand stating that he was the tenant of the land in question. That Tenancy Case No. 53 of 1-975 filed by the petitioner under Section 70(b) read with Section 32O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') before the Court of Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand was decided in favour of the petitioner, by an order dated 21st June, 1978 and he was declared as tenant and deemed purchaser of the land under Section 32O of the Act.3. The said order was challenged by the respondent landlord in appeal under Section 84 of the Act before the Deputy Collector (Appeals), Anand. It was dismissed on 3rd April, 1980 and the Deputy Collector (Appeals), Anand and the authority was directed...
Tag this Judgment!Arjunbhai K. Vegda Vs. Tejvir Park Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3026
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was the member of respondent No.1 society. It is the case of the Society that certain amounts were required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent society and they were not paid in spite of the demand and, therefore, on 30-11-1975 a resolution was passed at the general board meeting of the respondent society for expelling the petitioner as the member of the society. It appears that when it came to the notice of the District Registrar on 27-5-1976, the District Registrar addressed a letter to the Chairman of the respondent Society that the resolution passed at the general board meeting would not become effective on its own and as per the Section 36 of the Act, a proposal is required to be submitted to the District Registrar and, thereafter the procedure is required to be undertaken. If such proposal is not submitted, the action shall be unconstitutional or illegal. Thereafter, the District Registrar, once ag...
Tag this Judgment!Legal Heirs of Deceased Fakirchand Ambaram Patel Vs. Official Liquidat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas588(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. In this group of company applications, the controversy revolves around the rights that the lessors or persons claiming to be heirs of the lessors have in different parcels of lands given on lease in the distant past to various companies, which are now in liquidation (the company); they are claiming back possession of the said lands on the various grounds that have been stated in the applications and urged during the course of hearing.2. Before adverting to submissions made on behalf of various contesting parties a brief recapitulation of historical facts is necessary.3. On October 7, 1994, this court (Coram : Mr. Justice M. S. Parikh), had passed a common order in Company Application No. 47 of 1993 with Company Application No. 48 of 1993 with Company Application No. 49 of 1993 in Company Petition No. 72 of 1991. The said applications filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased lessors of respective properties being land as particularly described in the...
Tag this Judgment!Anjuman Education Trust and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj77
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule Ms. Sonal Vyas waives service of Rule for respondents. 2. The petitioners prayed in this petition to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11-2-2002 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the appeal/ representation filed by the petitioner and further prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to release grant in their favour to run Standard XI and XII in Nav Gujarat Madhymik Secondary School at Balasinor. Dist. Kheda from the date of the application. 3. From the record of the case, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 Trust was given permission in June, 1997 to start standard XI General Stream in new school as a special case on a specific condition that it shall not ask for any grant. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 Trust started school in June.1998 for Standard XI without claiming any grant and temporary permission was granted to it. An undertaking dated 2-11-1999 was submitted by the petitioner on stamp of Rs.20/- wherein it ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sabarkantha District Co-op. Castor Oil-seeds Growers Union Ltd. Vs. St ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR917
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Ms. Devani, A.G.P., for respondents waives service of rule. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The short facts of the case are that when the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Society was holding the charge on 17-8-1999 the appointment of custodian was made under Section 74D of the Gujarat Co-op. Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said order of appointing the Custodian was challenged in Special C.A. No. 6185 of 1999 and on 19-8-1999 this Court (M.R. Calla, J.), had stayed the order of appointing the custodian. On 23-8-1999 the custodian addressed a letter intimating that in view of the order passed by this Court in Spl.C. A. No. 6185 of 1999 the Managing Committee would be continued. Thereafter, on 25-8-1999 upon the application moved by the authority, this Court (M.S. Shah, J.), passed an order for maintaining status quo. In this manner, matter was at large pending before this Court on the question of a...
Tag this Judgment!Renumal Vershibhai Bijani Vs. Bantwa Municipal Borough
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ986
D.S. Sinha, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Chirag Kothari for Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, and Mr. M.N. Devnani, learned counsel representing the alleged condemners. 2. Special Civil Application Nos. 6485, 6486 and 7682 of 1997 filed by the applicants were allowed by this Court, vide its Judgment and Order dated 03-12-1997, and while allowing the applications, this Court gave the following directions:-'Respondent No. 3 Bantwa Municipal Borough is directed to pay to the petitioners herein all the arrears of salary within a period of six months from today. In the event, respondent No. 3 fails to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners within the period of six months as directed hereinabove, it shall pay the interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of this Order till the date of payment.'3. The applicants contend that the alleged contemners have failed to comply with the directions given by this Court, quoted above, and...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Dhansiram Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2002LC788(Gujarat); 2005(183)ELT424(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the interlocutory orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Mumbai requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lacs as a pre-deposit for hearing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 7-6-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai imposing penalty of Rs. 4 crores under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are as under :-2.1 The petitioner is a director of Asheema Fashions Pvt. Ltd. and the proprietor of M/s. Ishan Exports. The petitioner was looking after the affairs of the four firms/companies viz. Asheema Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Asheema Exports, Ishan International & Ishan Exports. These four firms claim to have made certain exports of textiles during the periods 1993-94 and 1994-95. On the strength of the said exports, the said firms obtained Advance L...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Khandwala (i.P.S.) Addl. D.G.P. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR802
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. This case arising from the complaint of inhuman torture in police custody for three days from 7-10-1976 and allegations of offences under Sections 34, 114, 331, 336, 337, 334, 346, 348, 352, 355 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the I.P.C.' for short) is dragged on this far through more than seven legal proceedings, inter alia, on the plea of protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Cr.P.C.' for short). Even as the complainant lives on as an invalid septuagenarian, one of the four accused persons is stated to have already passed away. The present revisionists-accused persons are an erstwhile Assistant Superintendent of Police and a Police Sub-Inspector. The common refrain ingenuously agitated in different proceedings, successfully staving off trial for the alleged offences for a quarter of a century, is as to whether the alleged offences were committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of the official duty of the accused....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Talal Taluka Sahakari Khand Udyog ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR21(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. In this reference, at the instance of the applicant-Revenue, the following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1984-85 :'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,01,81,278 made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 43B in respect of outstanding sales tax amount when the resolution of the Government was passed on December 14, 1984, and the assessee had not discharged its liability on March 31, 1984, i.e., prior to the date of resolution ?'In this reference, the only dispute is about disallowance under Section 43B for unpaid sum of Rs. 1,01,81,278 for sales tax. It is the stand of the assessee before the assessing authority that the State Government had allowed the assessee to return sales tax collected as a sort of incentive provided for the growth of industry. On this basis, it was contended by the assessee that its case was covered by the provisions contained in Section...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saurashtra Packaging P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR520(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. At the instance of the applicant-Revenue, the following question of law is referred to this court for its opinion for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 :'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of sales tax refund received by the assessee-firm was not to be included in the total income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 41(1) nor the provisions of Sections 176(3A), 170(1)(b) and 28(iv) are attracted ?'2. In this case, the assessee-company was one of the partners of Saurashtra Packaging Services and that firm stood dissolved with effect from April 1, 1983, and the business of the said firm was taken over as a going concern by the assessee-company with effect from April 1, 1983, itself in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The assessee received sales tax refund of Rs. 33,303 in the assessment year 1984-85 and Rs. 12,887 as sales tax refund in the previous year relevant to the ass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »