Gujarat Court December 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.
Hafez Rustom Dalal Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas883(Guj); [2005]59SCL265(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicants in these two applications are the Ex-Directors/Directors of Bahuma Polytex Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and have taken out these two judges summons separately seeking declaration from this Court that the applicants have acted honestly and reasonably and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the applicants ought to be excused and be relieved from the liability arising out of the notices dated 21.06.2002 issued by the Registrar of Companies, the opponent herein.2. The applicants have filed affidavits in support of the respective Judges Summons taken out by them in these two applications. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior counsel appearing with learned advocate Mr. Manish R. Bhatt for the applicants, Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General and Senior Counsel appearing initially with Ms. P.J. Davawala and thereafter Mr. J.M. Malkan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opponent.3. It is ...
Sheth Construction Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)398; [2005]274ITR304(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated May 1, 2003, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. SMC Bench, Ahmedabad, in I. T. A. No. 580/Ahd/2000. The appellant has proposed the following two questions stated to be substantial questions of law arising out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not sending the matter back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the issues on merits when in fact the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order did not deal with the grounds on merits but allowed the assessee's appeal on a preliminary point ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the validity of the assessment order when the order sent to the assessee was not signed by the Assessing Officer ?'2. At the outset Mr. Manish J. Shah, the learned advocate for the appellant, sta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Peass Industrial Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)326; [2005]274ITR437(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Ahmedabad. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereto and sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereto is not unreasonable and or perverse ?'2. The assessment year is 1975-76 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year ended on March 31, 1975, The respondent-assessee filed a return of income on July 18, 1975, declaring the total income at Rs. 1,25,210. The assessment came to be finalised on September 18, 1978, unde...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mayur Foundation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Guj)197; [2005]274ITR562(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', Ahmedabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot.'Whether under the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the absence of any specific time limit prescribed Under Section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for submission of the notice in the prescribed manner to the assessing authority, and in the absence of any express or by clearly implied delegation to the rule making authority of any power to impose any time limit, such time limit prescribed in Rule 17 for submission of Form No. 10 by the rule making authority is invalid and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant trust has complied with all the conditions prescribed in Section 11(2) and is entitled to benefits allowable under the aforesaid provisi...
Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)3GLR1852
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. These two petitions have been placed before us in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge [Coram : M R Shah, J.] dated 11th August, 2004. By said order the learned Judge has directed that these petitions be placed before the Division Bench since the controversy involved in these petitions is identical to the controversy that forms subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 5742 of 1984, which is already referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge [ Coram : A N Divecha, J. as he then was] by order dated 4th April, 1996. The reference has been made by the learned Single Judge by framing the question to be decided as under :-'Can inordinate delay come in the way of authority acting under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 in declaring some sale transaction to be invalid on the ground of contravention of the relevant provisions contained therein?The reference has been made in view of two conf...
Ahmedabad Motor Transport Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj88
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred for declaration that the provisions of the National Highways (Rate of Fees) Rules, 1997 and the National Highways (Fees for the Use of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge Public Funded Project), Rules, 1997, are violative of and beyond the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and for further declaration that the levy of fees permanently made and sought to be made under the aforesaid Rules for Sarkhej bridge constructed on Sabarmati river at National Highway No. 8-A at K. M. 4/100 to 5/400 is bad in the eye of law and hence the respondents are not entitled to collect the same.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are collecting the fees for the use of Sarkhej bridge constructed on Sabarmati river, near Vishala Hotel, Ahmedabad in violation of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956') and the Rules framed thereunder for collecti...
S.R. Koshti Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)518; [2005]276ITR165(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Mrs.M.M.Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the respondent waives service of rule. When the notice was issued on 23rd August 2004, the Court had issued the notice for final disposal. Hence, in the light of the peculiar facts of the case, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.2. The petitioner, an individual, challenges, by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the orders made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad VII, Ahmedabad under Sections 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 29th March 2004.3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Manager with Industrial Financial Corporation of India Limited (the employer). On an offer being made by the employer, the petitioner opted under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and received a compensation of Rs. 7,50,000=00. Admittedly, when the payment of the said amount was made by the employer, the employer did not inform the petitioner regard...
Legal Heirs and Representative of Decd. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2590
ORDER-XXII RULE-10-A10A. Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death of a party. - Where a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.]' Section 141 with Explanation given to it is reproduced as under:'141. Miscellaneous proceedings.- The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction.[Explanation.-In this section, the expression 'proceedings' included proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.]'19. In Puran Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 1092], the apex court has examined the effect of explanation given to Section 141 of the Code of Civil...
Ratubha Jilubha Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR633
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Heard Mr. I.S. Supehia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D.S. Pandit, learned AGP for the respondent.2. The petitioner is serving as Unarmed Police Constable in the city of Ahmedabad under the respondent. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 498-A of the I.P. Code in Criminal Case No. 123 of 1987 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide the judgment dated 30-6-1989 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a find of Rs. 1000-00, in default thereof to suffer imprisonment for 2 months. The petitioner as it appears from the record has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1989, which according to the petitioner has been admitted and is pending for final disposal. The petitioner has been released on bail.2. The Deputy Police Commissioner, North Zone, Ahmedabad City, issued a show cause notice on 17-3-1990 to the petitioner for passing appropriate order on the ground that the petitioner was convicted under the criminal ...
Om Prakash S/O Guru Charan Dass Vs. O.N.G.C.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1444
Anant S. Dave, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the discrimination meted out to the petitioner by the respondent-Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited by not granting benefits of due promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, after his retirement, and, thereby, depriving him of consequential terminal benefits, etc. as per the Rules existing in the respondent-Corporation.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Fitter in the respondent-Corporation on 28th March 1968 and, thereafter, promoted to the post of Chargeman Assistant Engineer (Foreman), on 1.4.1982. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 25.3.1992 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1985. The petitioner retired from service on 31st August 1992 and, according to the petitioner, he was due for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1.1.1991, but, as the earlier promotion was not granted...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »