Gujarat Court July 2003 Judgments
Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR1899
C.K. Buch, J.Rule, Mr. A. D. Oza learned Public Prosecutor waives Rule on behalf of the respondent-Government in all matters.1. All these Misc. Cri. Applications have been moved by the accused persons for bail in connection with the F.I.R. being CR-I No. 9 of 2002 came to be registered with Godhra Railway Police Station for various offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 337, 338, 328, 438, 320, 307, 120B and 153A of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 141 and 150 and 152 of the Indian Railways Act read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On completion of the investigation qua the present petitioners and some other accused persons arrested in later point of time, have been charge sheeted and after filing of the charge sheet the learned J.M.F.C. (Railways) at Godhra committed the case against the accused so charge-sheeted to the Court of Sessions, Panchmahals at Godhra and a Case b...
Tag this Judgment!M.M.L. Shah High School Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2367
H. K. Rathod, J. 1. At the outset, this Court would like to quote observations made by the Apex Court relevant to the present case, in case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 (1) SCC 305; '14. We would like to point out that the philosophy of this Court as evolved in the cases we have referred to above is not that of the Court, but is ingrained in the Constitution as one of the basic aspects and if there was any doubt on this there is no room for that after the Preamble has been amended andthe Forty-second Amendment has declared the Republic to be a socialistic one. The judgments, therefore, do nothing more than highlight one aspect of the constitutional philosophy and make an attempt to give the philosophy of flesh and blood. 15. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of this Republic while dreaming of elevating the lot of the common man of this country once stated - 'Our final aim can only be a classless society with equal economic justice and opportunity to all, a society...
Tag this Judgment!Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Devt. Centre Vs. O.L. of Rustom M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: [2004]50SCL594(Guj)
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Judge's Summons has been taken out by M. Visweswaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'the Centre') for recovery of the possession of the office premises situated at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai.2. The applicant has prayed as under:-'a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator, High Court, Gujarat, appointed as the Official Liquidator of Rustom Mills & Industries Ltd. to take over vacant possession of Unit No.60 in Trade Centre Arcade, in World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bombay 400 005 from the 2nd Respondent and handover the same to the Applicant. b) That the Respondent No.2 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,86,384/- to the Applicant towards arrears of outgoings including interest on delayed payment upto 31st March, 2002.Arrears for 1993-1999 Rs.59,047 Outgoing charges Rs.86,875 Arrears for April-Dec.01 Rs. 8,757 Telephone Charges Rs. 2,910 ------------------- Rs.1,57,589 Interest on delayed paym...
Tag this Judgment!Taluka Development Officer Vs. Rameshchandra M. Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR826; (2004)ILLJ438Guj
A.M. Kapadia, J. 1. Instant appeal which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated March 21, 1997 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9893 of 1996 by which award dated July 1, 1996 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (ITR) No. 67 of 1991 directing the appellant No. 1 to make his workman, Rameshchandra M. Bhatt, the respondent herein, permanent with effect from 1/12/1978 and to treat the period from 1/12/1978 to 31.12.1994 as notional and pay him the arrears with effect from 1.1.1995 onwards and also to pay Rs. 500/- to the Union of the respondent towards cost, is upheld and thereby the petition filed by the appellants is dismissed.2. The respondent was appointed by the appellant No. 1 vide order dated November 20, 1975 as a workman on temporary adhoc daily wager on a daily remuneration of Rs. 7/- which was paid out of 2% contingency fund. The respondent was required to work as a clerk on the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanubha Gulabsinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR852
K.A. PUJ, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the City Deputy Collector and Election Authority of Gujarat State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd (GUJKOMASOL), the respondent No.2 herein on 23rd June 2003 whereby the nomination of the petitioner No.1 for election of the GUJKOMASOL is rejected on the ground that the petitioner is convicted under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Section 145F of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by the Development Commissioner and thereby the petitioner No.1 is disqualified to contest the election of GUJKOMASOL.2. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner No.1 is not even charged for the offence punishable under Section 153-A or Section 171-E or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of Indian Penal Code or Section 145-R or Section 145-S of the Act and hence the question of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Aluminium Extrusions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: [2003]263ITR453(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that deduction under Section 35(2) is allowable on capital expenditure for building which is under construction and is not put to use for research and development purpose ?'2. We have heard the senior advocate, Shri D.D. Vyas, standing counsel for the applicant-Revenue, and the learned advocate, Shri Tushar Hemani, for the respondent-assessee.3. The facts giving rise to this reference, in a nutshell, are as under :The assessee is a private limited company manufacturing aluminium extruded sections. The assessee constructed a building for the purpose of scientific research and, therefore, claimed deduction under the provisions of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Nagjibhai J. Desai Vs. Director of Municipalities and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1722
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent No. 1-Director of Municipalities, relaxing the eligibility criteria pursuant to the proposal dated 5-11-1990, by which the President of the Municipality had requested the Director to consider the case of one Laxmanbhai Mochi, for relaxation of the eligibility criteria of educational qualification for his appointment to the post of Tax Superintendent. The petition was filed on 10th February, 1991 and status-quo, which was granted, has remained operative, as a result of which, admittedly, no further action was taken pursuant to the impugned order dated 8th February, 1991, which is now placed on record by the respondents along with other papers.2. According to the petitioner, he was working as Octroi Clerk in the respondent-Municipality. He had put in 22 years of service, and belonged to Economically and Socially Backward Class community. He was having M.Com. Degree and had passed Local Self-Government Dip...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmikant Bhagubhai Vs. D.K. Solanki
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(174)ELT436(Guj)
D.P. Buch, J.1. The petitioners herein have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') for quashing a complaint being Criminal Case No. 1099/1994 filed against them, as well as against other accused persons, by respondent No. 1 herein, before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 43 & 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, read with Section 47 of the said Act. The petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the Managing Directors while the petitioners Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the Directors of the Company.2. The first respondent has filed the aforesaid complaint, as an Assistant Law Officer of Gujarat Pollution Control Board at Gandhinagar before the above Court, stating that the accused in the said criminal case are running industry in the name and style of Cellulose Products of India Ltd. situated at Ahmedabad. It is alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrinalini V. Sarabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)122; [2004]265ITR64(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law, arising from an order passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has been referred to this Court under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order made by the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the ITO attracting the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. Senior standing counsel Shri M.R. Bhatt has appeared for the applicant-Revenue whereas learned advocate Shri R.K. Patel has appeared for the respondent-assessee.3. The undisputed facts giving rise to this reference, in a nutshell, are as under:4. The assessee had appointed a firm, named, M/s. Chidambaram (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'), as an agent, who used to look after the financial affairs of the assessee and the said firm also used to make and re...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Chhadia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1636
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Phone Inspector with effect from 13-1-1975 with the respondent - B.S.N.L. while he was serving as a Special Grade Phone Inspector at Rajkot, by his letter dated 20-11-2000 he requested for voluntarily retirement from service due to unavoidable circumstances with effect from 28-2-2001. The said application was processed immediately by the respondents but before its acceptance he applied for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement application on the ground that he was already selected for the post of J.T.O. and therefore, he decided to join the training for J.T.O. immediately. The said withdrawal application was granted by the authorities. Therefore, he continued to remain in service. 2. On 17-1-2001 he once-again applied for voluntary retirement from service (Annexure-B) on the ground that due to unavoidable circumstances he was not able to render his services and the same may be treated as three months notice. Accordingly, he applied...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›