Gujarat Court October 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sheikh Madinabibi Mustafabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1339
ORDERIt is submitted jointly by ld. counsel appearing for respondents accused that CAV Judgment passed by this Court may be placed under suspension as the some of the accused may decide to approach the higher forum and challenge the judgment pronounced by this Court today. The main submission advanced is that if the trial proceeds, then the petition contemplated before the Apex Court may become infructuous. The second submission is that if the stay is granted, then the prosecution is not likely to suffer any prejudice.Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and totality emerging from the record as well as from the submissions made before the Court today and on earlier occasion, the Court is not satisfied and, therefore, the request to suspend the order for 3 (three) weeks is refused. No stay as prayed for is granted....
Saral Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(98)ECC736; 2005(184)ELT361(Guj)
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Mr. Malkan learned standing counsel, on notice, waives service for the respondents. Mr. Malkan places on record the reply affidavit.2. Show cause notice dated 21.03.1991 was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why excise duty of Rs. 5,72,852.29 ps. should not be imposed under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Act and also penalty on the petitioner and the goods should also not be confiscated. Thereafter, Collector, Central Excise passed order-in-original dated 23.03.1993 and confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lacs on the petitioner and Rs. 1.5 lacs on the proprietor under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules (Annexure `E'). Against the same, an application with application for waiver of pre-deposit was filed before the Custom, Excise & Gold Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short 'CEGAT') and by an order dated 30.06.1993 the CEGAT granted complete waiver of pre-deposit on the ground of financial ha...
Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(180)ELT150(Guj)
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Dave for petitioners and Mr. Malkan, learned Standing Counsel appearing on advance copy of this petition being served upon the respondents.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara-II passed the order-in-original dated 28-11-2003 after hearing the petitioners on show cause notice served upon them whereby he confirmed duty amount of Rs. 90,50,293/- against the petitioner-company with interest and penalty on Rs. 90,50,293/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalties of Rs. 25,00,000/- on Mr. Vivek B. Maheshwari, Director and Rs. 10,000/- each on Mr. B.M. Patel, Mr. Anil Kumar Jadav and Mr. Devesia, employees of the petitioner company and on other parties were levied by the said order (Annexure-B). The impugned order dated 28-11-2003 was served upon the petitioners on 27-1-2004. Separate appeals with stay applications were filed against the said order before the Appellate Tribunal on 18-3-2004. During t...
Somabhai Devabhai Chauhan Vs. Divisional Controller S.T. Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR493]
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Admit. Mr. Jayesh Barot, learned advocate appearing for Mr. HS Munshaw, learned advocate of respondent, waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent- S.T. Corporation.2. Since the question involved in this appeal is in a narrow compass in relation to modification of the order of backwages made by the learned Single Judge, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today and is decided by this judgment.3. Instant appeal which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 15.7.2002 rendered by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6423 of 2002 by which, while allowing the petition partly, award dated 29.10.2001 rendered in Reference (LCN) No. 75 of 1999 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Navsari, to reinstate the appellant with full backwages and with continuity of service has been modified and thereby backwa...
Kolety Gum Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT344(Guj)
ORDERA.R. Dave, J.1. RULE. Service of rule is waived by learned Senior Standing Counsel Shri Jitendra Malkan for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today.2. The short question, which has been involved in the petition, is whether the petitioner should be asked to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as directed by the CESTAT.3. Looking to the fact that Appeal No. E/1703/03-Mum filed against Order-in-Original No. M/222/WZB/2004/C-I is still pending before the CESTAT, we would not like to go into the merits of the matter. However, we cannot refrain from observing that, in the order passed on the application, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner had not been properly appreciated. Looking to the said peculiar facts, in our opinion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs by way of pre-deposit on or before 30th October, 2004.4. Senior advocate Shri Kamal Trivedi appe...
Patel Bhagiben, D/O. Mangaldas Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC263
D.K. Trivedi, J.1. Rule. Mr. Patel, learned APP waives service of rule. By consent of the counsel appearing in the matter rule is fixed forthwith.2. Heard Ms. Kapadia for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Patel, who in turn has taken us through the application and the judgment under challenge by which the trial court has convicted the applicant - appellant No. 3 (Original accused No. 4) for the offence under section 498A read with 114 of I.P. Code as well as for the offence under section 306 read with section 114 of I.P. Code. The applicant was ordered to suffer R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 498-A read with section 114 of I.P. Code and Rs.500/- fine, in default of fine further simple imprisonment for 20 days. The Trial Judge has further ordered to suffer R.I. for 9 years for offence under section 306 read with section 114 of I.P. Code and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 2 months; and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. It is the subm...
White Silco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(99)ECC635; 2005(179)ELT530(Guj)
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner M/s. White Silco Private Limited is a small unit. Show cause notices dated 18-12-1998 and 3-2-1999 were issued by the Superintendent to the petitioner demanding differential duty of Rs. 2,62,942/- for the period from June to December, 1998. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar confirmed the said demand of Rs. 2,62,942/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/- by an order dated 20-12-1999 which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 19-3-2001. Having heard on the application for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2,35,000/- and having considered the financial hardship of the petitioner, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ('CEGAT' for short) by its order dated 21-1-2002 (Annexure-B) directed the applicant petitioner to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thus, the petitioner was supposed to deposit amount of Rs. 1 lakh by 21-2-2002....
Rupsingbhai Tersingbhai Bhedi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR99
J.R. Vora, J.1. The present Appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment and order dated 30th January, 2003, delivered by Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Panchmahal at Dahod, in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2002, by which present appellants are convicted by the learned Trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.2. Incident in question appears to have occurred during night hours of 12th of September, 2001 and early hours of 13th of September, 2001 at village Jasuni, District Godhra. Deceased Mansingbhai Varubhai Palas, aged about 35 years, resided at village Tarkada-mahudi had married to one Jantaben. Jantaben, wife of deceased Mansingbhai, died before three years ...
Padmanabh Silk Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: 2006(193)ELT536(Guj); (2005)1GLR74
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 - M/s. Padmanabh Silk Mills, partnership firm, and its partner Shri Navnitbhai Nathubhai Gandhi, petitioner No. 2, have filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order be issued to the respondents and the decision of the respondent - Authority dated 29.8.2001 (Annexure : I) be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to pay interest to the petitioners at the rate of 15 % p.a. on the refund amount for the period from 22.2.1997 to 18.11.1999.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, passed an Order in Original on 29.1.1997 confirming certain amount of duty and penalties imposed on the petitioner firm. Against the said order passed in OIO, the petitioner firm filed Appeal and Stay Application before CEGAT wherein common stay order dated 22.9.1992 was passed by the CEGAT directing the...
B and Brothers Engineering Works Chhakodia Mahadev Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Guj)306; 2005(185)ELT119(Guj); [2006]282ITR474(Guj)
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 - M/s. B & Brothers Engineering works and its Partner Shri Ashvin Bhailalbhai Patel, petitioner No. 2, have filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and made the following prayer in Para : 8(A) & (B) :(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of the Karvivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 as brought into force by the Finance Act No. II of 1998 and that therefore the payment made by the petitioner No. 1 on 30.3.999 be accepted by the respondents and the necessary certificate be issued to the petitioner No. 1 under Section 90(2) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure : D.2. Show cause notice date...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »