Gujarat Court November 2003 Judgments
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohanbhai S. Patanvadia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR169]
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. By filing this petition, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Corporation has challenged the orer passed by the Presiding Officer, Nadiad dated 4.6.1987 in Reference L.C.N.No.333 of 1988 having old number no. 1232 of 1981. The respondent workman was serving as a conductor in the S.T.Corporation at its Borsad Depot. The respondent was subjected to departmental proceedings on the ground of misappropriation of certain amount. By order dated 27.3.1979, he was dismissed from service in view of the aforesaid misconduct. The concerned workman, thereafter, raised industrial dispute. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nadiad referred the said matter to the Labour Judge, Nadiad for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ultimately allowed the reference partly and by setting aside the removal order, the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement without backwages. The Labour Court also in...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat V. Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN178(Guj)
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has, in this petition, prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash the notice dated 15.7.2002 issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') proposing to reassess the income of the petitioner. Initially, while issuing notice in this proceeding, the respondent concerned were directed to disclose to the petitioner the reasons for reassessment and not to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned notice. After grant of such ad-interim relief and statement of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the Department would not proceed further in pursuance of the impugned notice, a detailed order dated 30.9.2003 was made after hearing the learned counsel so as to direct the petitioner to raise his objections before the Assessing Officer and directing the Assessing Officer to consider and dispose of the objections in accordance with law by a...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2005(183)ELT9(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. The petitioners have been aggrieved by an order dated 10-6-2003, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,16,41,592/-, which, according to the petitioner was payable to the petitioner, has been directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of certain notices, in all a sum of Rs. 1,16,41,592/-, was demanded by the respondent authorities from the petitioners in different proceedings and the said amount had been deposited under protest by the petitioners with the respondents when the appeals filed by the petitioners were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the said appeals by an order dated 5-3-2003, [2003 (157) E.L.T. A136 (S.C.)] whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the concerned intermediate products were not dutiable. In the circumstances, the petitioners were entitled to get back the amount, which had been paid by them, when the appeals filed before the Hon'ble Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.P. Karai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Guj)497; [2004]266ITR113(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The CIT, Jamnagar, has filed this Tax Appeal No. 199 of 2003 under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requesting this Court to frame and decide following substantial questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in ITA No. 5/Rjt/2001 for the block period from 1st April, 1987 to 29th Jan., 1998, decided on 3rd Jan., 2003:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in quashing the order of CIT passed under Section 263 of the IT Act ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ?'2. During the course of hearing of this Tax Appeal, one more substantial question of law is proposed to be raised by Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Department, which is as under:'Whether, in the facts and circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Trikamlal Lalji Surani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ163Guj
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Rule. Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent waives service of rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. This petition is filed by the State of Gujarat through its officers challenging the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Junagadh in Recovery Application No. 103 of 1997 dated October 19, 2001 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to partly allow recovery application. The learned Judge was pleased to order that an amount of Rs. 2,602.76 ps. be paid towards difference of pay, a sum of Rs. 16,217 be paid as difference on account of non-grant of higher pay-scale and a sum of Rs. 2,305 towards leave encashment, totalling to Rs. 21,124.76 ps. Learned Judge was pleased to award the cost of Rs. 500 also in favour of the respondent workman.4. Mr. Joshi, learned AGP submitted that the order of the learned Judge of the Labour Court 'is illegal inasmuch as the same is not in accord...
Tag this Judgment!Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Mukesh R. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Guj164
D. A. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference made by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India being the petitioner under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (the Act). The Reference is in respect of Shri Mukesh R. Shah, Chartered Accountant (Respondent) in the matter of recommendation of the petitioner made in the 228th Meeting held at New Delhi from 18th to 20th October, 2002.2. Shri S.K. Agarwal, Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad (the complainant) made the following allegations/charges against the respondent :'1.1 He had fabricated and filed challans for advance tax in respect of certain clients and relatives and then filed their returns of income showing nominal income so as to claim refund against advance tax paid. On investigation it was found by the Income-tax Department that the respondent had changed the amount of advance tax paid in copies of Challans that are retained by the assessee and sent to the Department along with the return. The ret...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant C. Shah, Deputy Engineer Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR901
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the final seniority list published by the department on 18-5-1984 which is at Annexure-B to this petition and the corrected list dated 2-1-1985, which is at Annexure-C to the petition.2. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed on 26-7-1966 as a Junior Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Wing. Thereafter, he was promoted on 17-7-1971 to the post of Deputy Engineer and was posted at the Design Circle, R. & B. Department on deputation. Subsequently, he was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer and was posted in his parent cadre at Gandhinagar. As per the averment in the petition, the petitioner was again promoted as Deputy Engineer and was posted at Baroda on 21-1-1972. In the meanwhile, the department has published a provisional seniority list on 29-2-1980 in connection with the employees working as Deputy Engineers (Civil). According to the petitioner, he was shown at Serial No. 48 in the...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kishor Lakha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR624]
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgement and order dated 22-12-1997 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing a group of petitions filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which the Labour Court, Godhra directed the appellants to pay the bonus amount of Rs.3,000=00 to each of the workmen with interest at the rate of 12% and costs of Rs.5,000=00 to the Union.2. The respondents - workmen, in all these matters, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the termination of their services as casual labourers. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by its common order dated 8th June 1989, held that the action of the authorities in terminating their services was violative of Section 25-N of the said Act.The termination orders were, therefore, set-aside and the appellants were directed to reinstate them and pay their backwages within three months fro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›