Gujarat Court September 2003 Judgments
Geb Through Secretary Vs. Saurashtra Chemicals
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Guj83
C.K. Buch, J. 1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellants -original defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 2/1991 against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1995 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (S.D.), Porbandar whereby suit of the respondent -original plaintiff company has been decreed. Appellants are the original defendants and respondent is the original plaintiff and for the sake of convenience, they will be referred to hereinafter as defendants and plaintiff respectively. Ld. Civil Judge decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 37,17,548-00 from the defendants with running interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realisation with costs of the suit.2. To appreciate the rival contentions raised by the ld. Senior counsel appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate to narrate the facts of the case in nutshell.2.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff compan...
Tag this Judgment!Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Sabarkantha D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR310
Jayant Patel, J. 1.With the consent of learned counsel for parties matters are taken up for final hearing today. I have heard Mr.B.N.Patel for the petitioner, Mr.Tushar Mehta for respondent No.1, Mr.Joshi, Ld.AGP for respondent Nos 2,3 & 4 and Mr.Baiju Joshi for respondent No.5. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is one of the member cooperative society of Sabarkantha Dist.Coop.Milk Producers' Union Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh/Society'). It is the case of the petitioner that the Byelaw 35(1)(A) of respondent No.1-Sangh provides that 16 members of the Managing Committee shall be elected from 7 constituencies which are identified as Division No.1 for Himmatnagar Taluka, Division No.2 for Prantij taluka, Division No.3 for Bayad taluka, Division No.4 for Modasa taluka, Division No.5 for Malpur-Meghraj taluka, Division No.6 for Idar taluka and Division No.7 for Bhiloda-Khedbrahma-Vijaynagar taluka. The grievance of the petitioner is that three tal...
Tag this Judgment!Nityanand M. Thakore Vs. Charity Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)2GLR971
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Desai waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos 1 & 3 and Mr. Macwan waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos 3 & 4. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The question arises in this petition is whether the Deputy Charity Commissioner has power to accept the deposition by affidavit as per amended provisions of O.18 R.4 of Civil Procedure Code while holding the inquiry under section 22 of Bombay Public Trusts Act or not.3. The short facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the First District Church Brethern (hereinafter referred to as 'the Brethern Church' for short) came to be formed by registration of the society as per the Societies Registration Act in the year 1944. The said Brethern Church subsequently in the year 1960 came to be registered as Bombay Public Trust under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Pradip Madhawani, Editor of nobat Daily and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2489
D. P. Buch, J.1. Rule. M/s. B. P. Munshi and A. M. Mehta, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of different respondents and waives service of notice of rule. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State.This is a group of 51 petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') by the aforesaid two petitioners in order to pray to quash Criminal Cases Nos. 3104, 3105, 3543 to 3552, 3561 to 3570, 3617 to 3642 and 3661 to 3669 of 2001 (in all 51 criminal cases) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar against the present petitioners filed by the second respondent in each case for offences punishable under Sections. 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 114 of I.P.C.. Incidentally, the first petitioner is the Editor of a daily newspaper published at Jamnagar namely 'Nobat'. Petitioner No. 2 is a person who appears to have given an article for being published ...
Tag this Judgment!Lilavatiben Wd/o Eknath Rana Vs. Urmilaben Satyenkumar Zaveri Died thr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR19
Kundan Singh, J. 1. This civil revision application has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the 4th Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1998, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11-3-1998 passed by the trial Court in Rent Suit No. 373 of 1996 against the petitioner-tenant for eviction of the suit premises was confirmed.2. The respondent filed Rent Suit No. 373 of 1996 for recovery of possession of the suit premises u/s 13(1)(L) of the Bombay Rent Act and for getting permanent injunction against the defendant - tenant. It is stated by the plaintiff in the suit that he is the owner of the suit property situated in Narsinhji's pole, Todawala's Khancha, in Vadodara. The defendant was a monthly tenant of one room and kitchen on the ground floor of the suit premises. The standard rent of the suit premises was Rs.30/- p.m. Moreover, municipal tax and education cess, water charges and electricity charges of the suit premises were to b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Star Steel (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)521
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the CIT and the following question of lawhas been referred to us by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' under Section 256(1)of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') :'Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the orderpassed by the ITO under Section 155(4A) whereby the investment allowance allowedat the time of the original assessment stood withdrawn ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company and for asst. yr. 1977-78 it was allowed investment allowance of Rs. 56,716 on an item of plant and machinery known as 'Reduction Gear Box'. During the accounting period relevant to asst. yr. 1981-82 the said plant and machinery was scrapped since it was not functioning efficiently resulting in frequent stoppages of production. In light of this accepted position, the AO issued notice indicating intention to rectify under Section 155(4A) of the Act, The assessee resisted the proposed action. However, according to t...
Tag this Judgment!Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki Decd. Through His Heirs and L.Rs. Vs. Bij ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Guj102; (2003)3GLR2563
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The aforesaid First Appeals are filed by the original defendants. First Appeal No. 889 of 1984 has been filed by original defendants nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15; whereas First Appeal No. 1118 of 1984 has been filed by original defendants nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19. These appeals have been filed by them for challenging the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1984 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge [S.D.] Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No. 15 of 1982 allowing the suit of the original plaintiffs and passing the decree of specific performance directing original defendants nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 to 19 to execute sale deeds in favour of original plaintiffs upon their paying the balance amount of Rs. 3,37,800/=.1.1. The Civil Revision Application (for short 'CRA') has been filed by original plaintiff no. 2 against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge [S.D.] Anand in Special Execution Petition No. 28 of 2000 seeking execution against the original de...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Transpek Industry Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Guj)337; [2004]265ITR493(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This is the reference at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The following question of law has been referred to us by the Tribunal. Ahmedabad Bench 'C', for asst. yr. 1983-84 :'Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the IAC to allow depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent on diesel generating set ?'2. The assessee, a limited company, claimed depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent on diesel generating set stating that the same was a part and parcel of the same machinery which was owned and used by the assessee. It was further stated by the assessee that the plant and machinery came in contact with corrosive chemicals and all other plant and machineries were allowed depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent and hence the diesel generating set, which was a part of the same machinery, was also entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. The AO granted the claim of the assessee.3. However, the CI...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Nagardas Panchhiwala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR846
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Against the order dated 3rd July 2000 passed by the learned Single of this Court (Coram: Ms. R.M. Doshit, J.) dismissing Special Civil Application No. 6054 of 2000 filed by the appellant-petitioner the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was qualified in the sense that the has passed SSC Examination initially on 7.3.1991. He was appointed as Daily Wager with respondent No. 3-Deesa Nagarpalika. However, his services were terminated on 1.2.1992. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court by way of a reference by raising industrial dispute. During pendency of the reference before the Labour Court removal order of the appellant was withdrawn on the condition that he will withdraw his case filed before the Labour Court. Accordingly, with effect from 2.4.1994 he was appointed on the post of Peon on a fixed monthly salary. In this way he made his come back in service with respondent No. 3-Nagarpalika. Within a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Popatlal Vadilal Bhansali Vs. Kasturbhai Ranchhodbhai Soni
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2595
Kundan Singh, J. 1. This Revision Application has been preferred by the petitioners-original defendants-tenants against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2002 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1997 passed by the 5th Extra Assistant Judge, Kheda at Nadiad whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1997 in Regular Civil Suit NO. 338 of 1990 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad for recovery of actual, vacant and physical possession of the suit shop from the defendants has been confirmed.2. The petitioner no.1 Popatlal Vadilal Bhansali is the original tenant of the suit property which was rented to him for business purpose. The petitioner no.1 was doing his business of hosiery and readymade clothes in the name and style of Deepmala Dresses. Thereafter, that business name was changed and the firm Parth Jewellers was started in the suit premises. The respondents-plaintiffs did not see the petitioner no.1 sitting regularly in the suit shop. Hence, they filed Regular Civil Suit n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »