Gujarat Court December 2003 Judgments
Shree Dwarka Lohana Mahajan Sadavrut Fund Vs. Joint Charity Commission ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Guj147
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Dipen Desal, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent.2. What is challenged in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated March 12, 2003 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Saurashtra-Kutch Region at Rajkot rejecting the petitioner's application raising the preliminary contention against initiation of suo motu proceedings under Section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short) for framing the scheme in respect of Shree Dwarka Lohana Mahajan Sadavrut Fund ('the trust' for short).3. By the show cause notice dated August 1, 2000 the learned Joint Charity Commissioner called upon the Trustees of the trust to state their case regarding framing of the scheme for the trust for its proper management and administration. The Trustees submitted their preliminary reply dated November 9, 2000 raising preliminary contention that suo motu notice under Section 50-A of th...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal Aggarwal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1657
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These three Letters Patent Appeals have been directed against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 8th August 2003, allowing the three petitions from which these appeals arise, while the Special Civil Application No. 9425 of 2002 has been filed for a direction on the respondents - insurance companies not to exclude the diseases contracted by the petitioner No.2 during the period of mediclaim policy, which was renewed from time to time, and not to load the premium, as was sought to be done, and to renew the mediclaim policies of the petitioner No.2 and 3.2. All the matters relate to mediclaim insurance policy and revolve around the question, whether the insurer has absolute right to cancel the contract of mediclaim insurance or to refuse renewal of the mediclaim policy and have been argued together by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties.Brief Facts and Pleadings :3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1028 of 2003, which arises from...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal Aggarwal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR637; [2004]53SCL330(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These three Letters Patent appeals have been directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed on 8th August, 2003, allowing the three petitions from which these appeals arise, while the Special Civil Application No. 9425 of 2002 has been filed for a direction on the respondents - Insurance Companies not to exclude the diseases contracted by the petitioner No. 2 during the period of mediclaim policy, which was renewed from time to time, and not to load the premium, as was sought to be done, and to renew the mediclaim policies of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.2. All the matters relate to mediclaim insurance policy and revolve around the question, whether the insurer has absolute right to cancel the contract of mediclaim insurance or to refuse renewal of the mediclaim policy and have been argued together by the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties.Brief Facts and Pleadings :3. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1028 of 2003, which arises ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ambalal Sarabhai D. Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Guj)155; [2004]269ITR119(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.:1. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil AppealsNos. 3576 and 3577 of 1989, dt. 26th Sept., 1989, at the instance of the Revenue,the following questions have been referred to this Court for its opinion under theprovisions of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which ariseout of an order dt. 27th Aug., 1983, passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench'C':'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion and the resolution dt. 31st March, 1974,and the letter dt. 1st April, 1974, changed the provisions of law, Clause (1)(i)(a) of thedeed of trust, when the deed of trust did not confer authority on the trustees toamend the deed of trust? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 164 of the Act did not apply to the assessee by reason of the resolution passed by the trustees on 31st March, 1974, even though accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Richpal Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT253(Guj)
ORDERA.R. Dave, J.1. Learned advocate Mr. Amar Dave appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that proper course for the petitioner at this stage is to approach the CESTAT to ascertain the amount which the petitioner should pre-deposit for the purpose of his appeal being heard. It has been submitted by him that a common order was passed by the CEGAT on 30-7-2002 whereby it was directed that if a sum of Rs. 35/- Lacs was pre-deposited by M/s. Pushpa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., it was not necessary for the other persons to deposit any amount by way of pre-deposit.2. It is the petitioner's case that the Company, namely, M/s. Pushpa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. did not deposit the said amount but along with the said Company, the petitioner also challenged the validity of the said order. The petitioner and the Company, both wanted the amount of pre-deposit to be waived. In the said litigation, ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered [2004 (165) E.L.T. A122 (S.C.)] that there was no case for...
Tag this Judgment!Narshiji Nagaji Majirana Vs. Mangilal Amturam Bishnoi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC518; 2005ACJ19; AIR2004Guj157; (2004)1GLR875
M.S. Shah, J. 1. RULE. Ms Megha Jani, learned counsel forrespondents No.2 and 3 waives service of Rule. As far asrespondent No.1 is concerned, since he was a truck driverand does not have any conflicting interest withrespondents No.2 and 3 and the effective relief sought bythe petitioner-claimant in the Motor Accident ClaimPetition is against the owner and insurer of the truck inquestion, and since respondent No.1 was already servedearlier, the Court does not think it fit to issue noticeof Rule on respondent No.1 and to wait for him to appear.In the facts and circumstances of the case, thepetition is taken up for final disposal today.2. The petitioner filed Motor Accident ClaimPetition No.32 of 2003 praying for compensation onaccount of death of his son Mansukh Narishiji Majiranawho expired in a motor vehicle accident at Gandhidham on31.12.2002. The claim petition was filed under Sections140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). Within a few mon...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT359(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. RULE. Service of rule is waived by Senior Standing Counsel Mr. D.N. Patel for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 12-9-2002 bearing No. A/1140/02-NB-SN passed by the CEGAT. By virtue of the impugned order, an appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and thereby an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad dated 14-12-2001 refusing grant of refund in favour of the petitioners has been confirmed.3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners had manufactured four automatic bag making machines. When the said machines had been cleared out of the premises of the petitioner-company, excise duty had been paid. 'The said machines had been returned within a period of one year from the date of its clearance and thereafter, the petitioner-company had remade the machines which had been cleared on payment of excise duty....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›