Gujarat Court January 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN72(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following question at the instance of the direction issued by this court for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under section 216 was rightly charged ?'The matter pertains to the Assessment year 1982-83 in respect of which the assessee had filed a Return on 29-6-1982, declaring a total income of Rs. 30,41,556. Revised Return was filed by the assessee on 25-11-1983, declaring an income of Rs. 28,95,923. The assessee-company had filed estimate in Form No. 29 on 15-6-1981 estimating its income at Rs. 21,06,000 after claiming set off in respect of business loss caused which was of Rs. 3,94,000. Advance tax payable was shown as Rs. 11,87,257. The assessee-company ought to have paid the tax in the instalment of Rs. 3,95,752 as per the estimate filed but...
Board Opinion Vs. Hathising Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: [2003]43SCL146(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, after having conducted an enquiry under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, has recorded an opinion under Section 20(1) of the said Act on 8-3-1999 in Case No. 180/87 that it is just and equitable that M/s. Hathising . should be wound up and the said opinion was forwarded to this Court for taking further action under the law. Based on this opinion, Company Petition No. 106 of 1999 was registered and placed before this Court for taking further action in the matter. On 15-6-1999, a statement was made before this Court by the ld. advocate appearing for the respondent-company that the appeal has been preferred before the AAIFR against the Board's opinion and an application for stay was also moved and on that ground, time was prayed for and same was granted by this Court.2. While expressing its opinion, the Board has observed that ...
Shambhu Dayal Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1620
D.P. Buch, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the First Information Report being Crime Register No. 22 of 2001 recorded before Unjha Police Station, Unjha of Mehsana District for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 272, 273, 326, 28, 511 and 120B of the I. P. Code as well as under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged by the Police Sub-Inspector of Unjha Police Station stating that when he was on duty on midnight petrol (sic.) duty on 21-1-2001, at that time he received an information that certain ediable goods were being carried in a truck near Tirupati Complex and an inquiry was made from the driver of the said vehicle. However, neither the driver nor the owner of the transport company could render any satisfactory explanation and ultimately samples were collected in presence of the Food Inspector. It was found that the said ...
Executive Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Zubedabai Ibrahim, L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1816; AIR2003Guj320; (2004)1GLR227
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. The Executive Engineer, Jamnagar Division, Gujarat Electricity Board has tiled this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 2-4-1984 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge (SD) Jamnagar in special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1980. The learned Judge has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff with proportionate cost. As per decree, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,32,800/ (Rs. One Lac thirty two thousand eight hundred only) from the defendant G.E.B. by way of compensation with running interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :--2.1 Smt. Subedabai Ibrahim Plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of deceased Ibrahim Haji and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of deceased Ibrahim Haji. The defendant is the principal officer of the Gujarat Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred as 'GEB' ) Jamnagar and GEB is carrying on the business of s...
Somabhai Ramjibhai Chowhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4728; II(2003)DMC340; (2003)4GLR752
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant-accused has challenged in this appeal the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.4.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessional Judge, Banaskanta at Palanpur convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. The appellant is the husband of deceased-Mehmudaben. As per the prosecution case, accused came in a drunken condition at about 8.30 p.m. on 22.10.1990 and beaten his wife Mehmudaben by giving fist and kick blows and thereafter poured kerosene on her and then set her at blaze. The accused had another wife and because of that quite often they had quarrels. The incident in question took place at about 10.00 p.m. where she was burnt alive and immediately she ran to the hospital in a burnt condition. Her husband-accused followed her. At the time of incident, except deceased and accused no one else was present in the house.2. Dr. Babubhai Sutharia PW. 1 Ex. 6 immediately ...
Usmanmiya Abbasmiya Pathan Through Wife Fatemabibi Vs. State of Gujara ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR878
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. By way of this petition, the detenu has challenged his detention order dated 7.5.2002. By the impugned order, the detenu is detained in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PASA' for short), as, the detaining authority found that the detenu is a 'dangerous person' and is required to be detained under the preventive detention, so that, he may not continue with such type of dangerous activities. 2. Along with the detention order, the detenu was also served with the grounds of detention. In the said grounds, it is mentioned that criminal case is filed against the detenu, which is pending at Gomtipur Police Station, being 0163/2000, under Sections 324, 323 and 294(B) of IPC as well as under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Another criminal case, which is mentioned in the said grounds of detention, is registered at Gomtipur Police Station, being 0159/2001, under Section 32...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›