Gujarat Court April 2003 Judgments
Satellite Television Asian Region Limited. Vs. Kunvar Ajay Desiner Sar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas609(Guj); [2004]50SCL575(Guj)
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Company Petition No. 210 of 2002 is filed on 20.11.2002 praying that Kunvar Ajay Designer Saree (P) Ltd. having its registered office at B-1, Thakkar Palace, Ghod Dod Road, Surat 395002, be wound up under the orders and directions of this Court. It is also prayed that the Official Liquidator or some other fit and proper person, as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper be appointed as Liquidator of the company, with all powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. By way of interim relief it was prayed that, pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Official Liquidator or some other fit and proper person as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper may be appointed as Provisional Official Liquidator of the company with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court issued notice on 25.11.2002 returnable on 17.12.2002. Before that date the petitioner caused an advertisement in newspapers, Sandesh (Surat and Ahmedabad editio...
Tag this Judgment!Bagsara Nagar Palika Vs. Anantray N. Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR470
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Muliya for learned advocate Mr.Parthiv B. Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa for respondent workmen appearing on caveat.Rule. Learned advocate Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents - workmen.Today, when the present petition is taken up for hearing, an affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondents-workmen and a copy thereof has been served on the learned advocate for the petitioner.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar dated 30th October, 2002 in the Reference [IT] No.57/94, wherein the Industrial Tribunal has directed the present petitioner to confirm 21 workmen whose names are mentioned in the operating portion of the award with effect from 1st January, 1995 and also directed to fix their pay scale and to pay them difference of salary with effect from 1st January, 1998.3. Learned...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupatji Shakaraji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR207
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. This Larger Bench has been constituted for considering the following question which as per the order made on 30th January 2003 by the Division Bench was required to be considered by a Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of two Division Benches of this Court : 'Whether the option offered to the accused to ascertain his willingness to be searched in presence of a Magistrate without referring to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or vice versa would amount to non-compliance of the provisions envisaged under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act?' 2. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 15 in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1996 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of which, to undergo further imprisonment of one year. 3. The appellant was caugh...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ganpatbhai Bagharbhai Vag ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR178
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.M.Dagali appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.J.S.Brambhatt on behalf of the respondent - workman. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Baroda in Reference No.648 / 1999 dated 24th April, 2002, wherein the labour court has set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with 50 % backwages of the interim period and continuity of service and also imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Learned advocate Mr.Dagali for the petitioner Corporation has submitted that defence of the workman that his bus was local and the stands come at usual small intervals and there was frequent flow of passengers stepping in and out of the bus at the stops and therefore, he was continously busy with the road booking but it was not to be correct considering the record of the departmental inquiry. He also submitted that the w...
Tag this Judgment!Subhashbhai Premaji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR689
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr.K.T.Dave, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner for appropriate relief to quash and set aside the order dated 31-3-2003 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department and the order dated 29-6-2002 passed by the Collector for declaring that the land was restricted new tenure land and subsequently for setting aside of the entry No.4054.3. Heard Mr.A.J.Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.T.Dave, learned AGP appearing for respondents No.1, 2, and 3.4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the property on 21-6-1997 and thereafter there was a consent decree. He submitted that the predecessor in title of the petitioner, respondent No.3 herein, had paid the premium and the land was mutated as unrestricted tenure and, therefore, the transaction of the sale cannot be said to be illegal. He further submitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Deva Gova Vs. District Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR73
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Yamini J Desai on behalf of the Original Respondents/Present Applicants and learned advocate Mr. P.V. Hathi on behalf of Original Petitioner/present Opponent in all the Petitions.2. The Original Petitioner has challenged the common award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in group of References being No. 170 of 1998 to 177 of 1998 and 1184 of 1990 to 1191 of 1990 dated 9.12.1999, wherein the Labour Court, Junagadh has set aside the termination order and granted the reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages of interim period.3. This Court, in all individual Petitions has issued RULE and granted ad interim relief in terms of Para 10(D) on 5.3.2001. Because of the interim order, reinstatement has been stayed by this Court, the original respondents workmen have filed Civil Applications with a prayer to grant benefit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). Upon their application, thi...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Mahmad Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR764
D.P.Buch, J.1. This is an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and conviction order dated 24.12.1998 recorded by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Valsad District camping at Valsad, in Special Case No. 7/96 under which the learned trial Judge convicted the present appellant for offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 12 years and directed payment of fine of Rupees One Lac. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The facts of the case of the prosecution before the trial court may be briefly stated as follows:2. Police Inspector, State Narcotic Cell, CID (Crime), Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, Mr N A Pathan is the informant and he had received an information that a person was selling narcotic drugs behind the railway cabin of Raichand Road at Navsari on 15.2.1996. Therefore, the said inf...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavanisinh Vaghubha Zala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR621
D.P. Buch, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short 'Code'], in order to challenge the judgment and conviction order dated 13.10.1993, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 1989, who dismissed the same and confirmed the judgment and conviction order dated 26.07.1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sihor, in Criminal Case No.101 of 1988. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Magistrate of the trial Court has convicted the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of I.P.C. and under Sections 112, 116, 118 and 85 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 and in default of payment, the petitioner was required to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts of the prosecution case be...
Tag this Judgment!Sirhind Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Guj)159
R.K. Abichandani, J.:1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following questions, one each, at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue, for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961:'R.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Ahd/1989; Asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85 (By the assessee).' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 40A(2) were applicable? R.A. No. 562/Ahd/1989; Asst. yr. 1984-85 (By the Revenue) (1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts, in deleting the addition made by the ITO invoking the provisions of Section 43B and directing the ITO to allow the relief subject to necessary verification?'2. The question referred at the instance of the assessee has a bearing on the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act. As per the admitted facts, the assessee-company and three persons who were its directors, had formed a partnership firm of four partners. Later on, there was a dissolution of the firm by w...
Tag this Judgment!Ziniben Bhanabhai Fakirbhai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Guj367
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The common prayer made in each petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to declare that the provisions of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) prescribing period of limitation for making application for reference are ultra vires and unconstitutional. Therefore, these three petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In order to understand the controversy raised in these petitions, it would be relevant to notice the facts as emerging in Special Civil Application No. 4573 of 1982 because the other two petitions, namely, Special Civil Application No. 3403 of 1984 and Special Civil Application No. 3408 of 1984 which involve similar points have been directed to be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 4573 of 1982.3. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4573 of 1982 was owner of land bearing S. No. 19/1 admeasuring 2 Acres 26 Gunthas situated at village Rundh of T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »