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.
Shivram Vishwanath Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)386; [2005]277ITR381(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been moved seeking enforcement and compliance of directions made in the judgment and order passed by this Court on 12th April, 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 2171 of 1997, Special Civil Application No. 3399 of 1997 and Special Civil Application No. 8606 of 1996.2. The petitioners, as owners of property entered into an agreement to sell on 25th Jan., 1996, and in pursuance thereof filed Form No. 37-1 as required by provisions of Section 269UC of Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961 {the Act). The Appropriate Authority acting under provisions of the said Chapter ordered purchase of the property. The said order came to be challenged by the purchasers (SCA No. 8606 of 1996) and by the vendors i.e., the present petitioners (SCA No. 2171 of 1997). The petitions came to be admitted. During course of the pendency of the petitions, the purchase price which was received from the Central Government was deposited with a scheduled bank in a fixed deposit receip...
Buthabhai Merabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1792
M.R. Shah, J.1. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the appellate-authority i.e. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dated 3-5-2004 in Appeal No. 975 of 2001 in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Vadodara dated 26-7-2001, by which the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Vadodara, in exercise of the powers under Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 1,11,434/- being the deficit stamp duty and Rs. 250/- by way of penalty determining the market value of the property in question at Rs. 10,90,900/-.2. The property in question came to be purchased by the petitioner by registered sale-deed dated 29-11-2000 which was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara on 29-11-2000 itself which was registered as document Regi...
Lave Narendrasinhji Jagatsinhji Vaghela Vs. O.L. of Kalol Mills Ltd. a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: [2005]60SCL24(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Company Application No. 324/94 is filed by one Mr. Narendrasinhji Jagatsinhji Vaghela, seeking direction to the Official Liquidator of Kalol Mills Limited, Kalol to return back to the applicant, possession of that portion of the land which was owned by the applicant and which was not let out by him to the Kalol Mills Limited (in liquidation). The applicant has further prayed for the direction to the Official Liquidator to return to the applicant that portion of the land which was given on rent by the applicant to the Kalol Mills Limited (in liquidation) or in the alternative, to pay rent to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 670.75 p.a. in respect of the said portion of the land which was given on rent to Kalol Mills Limited.2. The above application was rejected by this Court (Coram: D.A. Mehta, J.) along with other applications, vide order and judgment dated 30th July, 2002 and it was held therein that the possession of the land in question could not be handed over to the...
K.K. Parmar Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: [2005]60SCL1(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicants who are company paid staff working in the office of the Official Liquidator have taken out this judges summons seeking direction from this Court to the Official Liquidator to frame a scheme for the payment of remuneration and other terms of employment of the applicants and other Company paid staff in the office of the Official Liquidator on the basis of equal pay and other benefits for equal work as of Central Government Staff and particularly, on the lines suggested in the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 26.04.1994 in Misc. Company Application No. 24 of 1994. The applicants have also prayed for interim direction, during the pendency, formulation and finalisation of scheme to grant monetary benefits as are granted to the Company paid staff of the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay under order dated 18.08.2001 of the Bombay High Court or as may be deemed fit and proper by this Court.2. Heard Mr. A.L. Shah, learned advocate appearing...
Patel Gitaben Ramanlal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1498
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this group of 143 petitions, the petitioners who are primary teachers rendering services in primary schools run by the Municipal School Board of the Baroda Municipal Corporation have claimed that just as teachers in the primary schools run by the District Panchayat Primary Education Committees as well as teachers in the primary schools by the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations are paid salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000; the first grade higher pay-scale being given to them upon completion of nine years' service should also be the same i.e. Rs. 5000-8000 which is being given to the teachers in primary schools run by the District Panchayats upon completion of nine years' service, that the said scale already given to the 63 petitioners should not be withdrawn and that the remaining petitioners be given the same scale instead of offering them the lower scale of Rs. 4500-7000.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass.2.1 The petitioners are primary teachers employ...
Saiyad Aspak Ali Shaukat Ali Vs. Director of Municipalities and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR677
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The petitioner has by way of this petition challenged the order dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the Collector at Annexure-D to the petition, which was confirmed by respondent No. 1, Director of Municipalities vide order dated 11th/15th May, 2004 in Appeal No. 24 of 2004.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a duly elected Councillor of the respondent-Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that during the previous term as Councillor, a complaint being C. R. No. I-85/ 2000 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the I.P.C. The petitioner contended that thereafter proceedings under Section 37(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) were initiated and vide order dated 17th January, 2001, the Director of Municipalities respondent No. 1 herein, disqualified the petitioner as Councillor of the respondent-Municipality.2.1 The petitioner was thereafter again ...
Haresh Mafatlal Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj162
M.R. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner one of the allottees of Akshay Apartment situate at Ward No. 2, Gandhidham, whose flat has been collapsed in Earthquake occurred on 26th January 2001 and there was complete destruction of the petitioner's flat, has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Earthquake), Gandhidham, dated 30th May 2002 by which the Deputy Collector (Earthquake), Gandhidham has rejected the application of the petitioner for getting necessary compensation due to collapse or destruction of his flat in Akshay Apartment.2. Ms. PP Laheri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had produced all the necessary documents to prove his ownership and/or possession of the flat in question as on 26.1.2001 and/or prior thereto and inspite of that the Deputy Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner for compensation mainly o...
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj164; (2005)1GLR519
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. A common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions and therefore all the petitions are considered together and decided by this common judgement.2. The petitioners herein are consumers of Gujarat Electricity Board. They are High Tension Consumers and they have been charged on the basis of tariff applicable to them as HT consumers.2.1 According to the petitioners, the respondent Board issued exhorbitant supplementary bills to the petitioners being differential amount due to revision of tariff on account of change of classification from HTP-I to HTP-II(A). The petitioners were also informed that although original connection was released under HTP-I category, considering the activities carried out by the petitioners in their units, their units would fall under HTP-II(A) category. It appears that the new tariff was introduced with effect from 10.10.2000 and the special bill has been calculated on the basis of new tariff. Therefore, the petitioners herei...
State of Gujarat Vs. S.K. Mundra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: [2005]142STC360(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act') at the instance of the State of Gujarat raising and referring the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in law in holding that (a) sales of bronze powder made during the period July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980 by the opponent for the purpose of sales tax assessment are liable to be taxed under entry 9, Part A of Schedule II to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and not under entry 13 of Schedule III of the said Act; and(b) Accordingly removing of penalty of Rs. 2,702 imposed under Section 45(6) of the said Act.'2. The respondent-assessee, a registered dealer under the Act, is a trader (reseller) in bronze powder. The assessee paid tax along with the returns on the basis that the bronze powder, which is used for printing of textile fabr...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Vadilal Dairy Frozen Food Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC9(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following common question of law Under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act') at the instance of the applicant-State of Gujarat:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in law in allowing set-off under rule 42 of the Gujarat sales Tax Rules, 1970, on the purchase of dry-ice made by the opponent 2. The respondent-assessee, who is carrying on business of manufacturing ice-cream, claimed set-off under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 ('the Rules') in respect of the tax paid on dry- ice contending that the same was an item of consumable stores. The Sales Tax Officer, while assessing the respondent-assessees for Samvat Years 2034, 2035, 2036 and 2037, disallowed the set-off, holding that dry-ice was employed to facilitate transportation of manufactured goods and did not form an item of consumable stores, The assessee failed in the fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »