Gujarat Court September 2002 Judgments
Aventis Pasteur S.A. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR259(Gujarat)
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. Aventis Pasteur S.A.--appellant--original opponent has filed this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') against the order dated 16.9.2002 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 499 of 2002--an Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act Order below Exh. 1. The learned Judge by his impugned order held that it requires proper consideration that how and when such Distribution Agreement can be terminated by either of the parties and with what effect. The learned Judge further held that till final determination and conclusion of the point raised by the petitioner--M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.--original applicant (respondent in appeal) in the main petition, it would be appropriate to restrain the opponent from enforcing or implementing the termination notice dated 183.2002, the right of the petitioner to safeguard its interest in th...
Tag this Judgment!Ambeshwar Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj118; (2003)2GLR1500
ORDERP.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Company has challenged the order dated 25th October, 2001, passed by the Appellate Committee of the Gujarat Electricity Board, respondent No. 1 herein, in Appeal No. A-82/2001. By the impugned order, the Appellate Committee has partly allowed the Appeal of the present petitioner and the said order of the Appellate Commit-tee is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.2. The petitioner is a Limited Company and is a high tension consumer of the Gujarat Electricity Board having its contract demand of 2000 KVA. On 2-5-2001, on behalf of the respondents, a Trivecto meter was installed at the electricity installation of the petitioner. The electricity installation of the petitioner was thereafter cheeked by the Industrial Checking Squad, which is specially constituted by the Board of the purpose of detection of theft and pilferage of electricity energy. Initially, the chec...
Tag this Judgment!Patira Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2004]267ITR621(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law stated to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated March 8, 2002.(i) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act; 1961, for arriving at a conclusion that 'depreciation' falls within the scope of 'Chapter XIV-B' and hence, as a consequence, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 34,99,613 be treated as a part and parcel of 'undisclosed income' while confirming assessment under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in giving its ultimate finding for disallowance of depreciation in block assessment or the same is vitiated in the eyes of law it being contrary to the settled position of law since several relevant factors on record clinching the issue have been ignored by the Tribunal ?(iii) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 4,68,824 under Section 158BC by ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Nirmalaben Waghela, President
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR320
ORDER1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the Show Cause Notice dtd. 6.6.2002, issued by the State Government under Sec. 263(1) for the dissolution of the Porbandar Municipality.2. Heard Mr.Nanavaty, Sr. Counsel for the petitioner with Mr.A.R.Thakkar, for the petitioner.3. Mr.Nanavati for the petitioner submitted that, the State Government has no authority to give direction to the President of the Municipality, to convene the General Board Meeting and he further contended that, the ground mentioned in the Show Cause Notice cannot be said to be valid ground in the eyes of law for the purpose of attracting the powers under Sec. 263 of the Act.4. Mr.Nanavaty also submitted that, out of the political mala fide, with a view to see that, the elected board which is having majority, of opposite political party to the State level, is removed, the action is taken.5. Mr.Nanavati also submitted that, the details of the allegations are not mentioned and therefore, he submi...
Tag this Judgment!Prahladbhai Khemchanddas Patel Vs. Election Officer of Visnagar Taluka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1450
H.K. Rathod, J.The observations made by the Apex Court in case of Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma, AIR 1975 SC 403 are relevant to the facts of the present case. The observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision are therefore reproduced as under before adverting to the facts of the case before hand.'A democracy runs smooth on the wheels of periodic and pure elections. The verdict at the polls announced by the Returning Officers lead to the formation of Governments. A certain amount of stability in the electoral process is essential. If the counting of the ballots are interfered with by too frequent and flippant recounts by Courts a new system is introduced through the judicial instrument. Moreover, the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct becomes exposed to deleterious prying, if recount of votes is made easy. The general reaction, if there is judicial relaxation on this issue may well be a fresh pressure on luckless candidates, particularly when the winni...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadraben Wd/O. Amratlal Shah, Heir and L.R. of Amratlal M. Shah and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3104
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioners have filed this revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Rent Act') and challenged the impugned judgment and decree of eviction dated 1-8-2000 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in favour of the respondents-landlords setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-landlords for possession on the ground of arrears of rent and sub-letting.2. Learned Counsel Shri Shukla appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad misconstrued the important document i.e. partnership deed Exh. 168. According to his submission, there are three most important clauses in partnership deed Exh. 168, they are Clause Nos. 7 to 9. Mr. Shukla submitted that if Clause 7 of the partnership deed Exh. 168 was read in isolatio...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuf Ismail Vohra Vs. U.H. Patel Intelligence Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR345
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. By Criminal Misc. Application Nos.5798 and 5799 of 2002, the petitioners have sought to challenge the identical orders dated 3.7.2002 below Exhs.39 and 50 in Sessions Case No.220 of 2000 and No.143 of 2000 respectively, whereunder, the applications of the petitioners to recall the order framing charge and to follow the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) are rejected by the learned Special Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad.The issue which was required to be decided by that Court was whether the Special Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the NDPS Act' for short) was the court of original jurisdiction required to record the evidence under Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C. at the pre-charge stage insofar as the case was alleged to have been instituted otherwise than on a police report.2. Since these petitions were argued on a solitary legal point and the facts are not required to be recounted, s...
Tag this Judgment!Devendrasingh Kesharisingh Rathod Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3493
M.S. Shah, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the words 'because of poor, weak and sick administration of the respondents' in Para 4 of the petition.Leave as prayed for is granted.The petitioner, who was a Joint District and Sessions Judge, retired voluntarily from service on 8-7-1999 as per the order dated 6-7-1999. The District Judge, Junagadh fixed the provisional pension of the petitioner on 1-10-1999.In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, no grievance is made about any delay in payment of monthly pension, but the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the amount of commuted pension and gratuity for the period from 8-7-1999 to 20-3-2001 i.e. for about 19 months and on the amount of leave encashment for the period from 8-7-1999 till 15-2-2000 i.e. for about 8 months.The petitioner has relied on the Government resolutions annexed with the petition in support of...
Tag this Judgment!Chemox Laboratories Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilise ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC446; (2003)1GLR424
D.H. Waghela, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) between the same set of parties are argued and heard together on common issues involved and are disposed of by this judgment. The few relevant facts and documents to be found in the first Misc. Criminal Application No. 3934 of 1999 are admittedly representative of all the cases, and therefore, the arguments were based on them. The common prayers of the petitioners are aimed at quashing of the complaints or setting aside the process issued, in the consequent criminal cases, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch in respect of the alleged offence punishable under the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for brief). The main controversy regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court has already travelled through two judicial proceedings in the form of an application made in the trial Court for trans...
Tag this Judgment!Kanjibhai Haridas Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR689
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Common award made by the Assistant Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 10 to 20 of 1982 dated 31st December, 1985 has been challenged by the appellants in this group of first appeals whereunder the Reference Court concerned has allowed the said references and has granted the additional amount of compensation including solatium and costs and interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of taking over the possession till the date of actual payment less the amount already received by the appellants. As per the impugned award, the Reference Court has granted Rs. 190-00 per Are for Kyari lands and irrigated lands and Rs. 140-00 per Are for unirrigated Jirayat lands and Rs. 100-00 per Are for the waste lands. The Reference Court has calculated compensation as per the decision in case of each of the claimants at this rate and the Reference Court has prepared tabular form in respect of the compensation payable to each of the claimants as per the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »