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.
Asif Abdul Karim Bidiwala Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR693
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr.S.H.Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel with Mr.Y.S.Lakhani, appearing for the petitioner-detenu and Mr.M.M.Tirmizi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for Union of India and the concerned Department of Central Government, so also, Ms.H.B.Punani, learned AGP for respondent No. 3.2. The present petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing the order of detention bearing F No. 673 / 4 / 2004-CUS-VII dated 28.5.2004 issued by Mr.R.K.Gupta, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi in exercise of the powers vested under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act.3(i) The order of preventive detention has been passed on the allegation that the petitioner is responsible for breach of COFEPOSA Act and is required to be prevented from smuggling goods in future. After execution of the order on 1st June, 2004, he is kept under detention ...
Cit Vs. S.C. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]149TAXMAN25(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following two questions under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad:'1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee should be assessed in the status of Body of Individual?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 30-6-1981. The assessee filed its return of income in the status of Body of Individual and the assessing officer accepted the same while framing assessment under section 143(3) on 29-2-1984. The Commissioner of Income Tax initiated revisional proceedings under section 263 of the Act after issuing showcause notice to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax did not accept the ...
Mulchandbhai N. Parmar Vs. District Superintendent of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1291
Anant S. Dave, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner against the concurrent findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, after exhausting two rounds, where, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 31st May 1989 by the respondent No. 1.2. The main grounds of challenge to the impugned order of dismissal dated 31st May 1989 passed by the respondent No. 1 are that the petitioner had never indulged in the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him; the procedure of departmental enquiry held by the Authority was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice; the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence; and, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have failed to look into this aspect and, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal dated 31st May 1989 passed by the respondent No. 1 deserves to be quas...
Harshadbhai Mangalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj177
M.R. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent No. 2 - Collector, Stamp Duty, Vadodara dated 17.9.1994 by which on the basis of the audit objection, the respondent No. 2 has passed an order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 26,000//- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs. 26,000/-- by way of penalty in all Rs. 52,000/-. 2. One Abdul Sattar Gul Mohammed Hakim executed the will in favour of the petitioner Harshad Mangalbhai Patel and the property in question was given to the petitioner. The said will was presented and registered before the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara on 3.1.1986. It appears that there was an audit objection and a show cause notice came to be issued by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the said audit objection by which the petitioner was directed to show cause why the aforesaid document i.e. will should not be treated as the mortga...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Maharaja Daljit Singhji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)137; [2005]274ITR524(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following question of law Under Section 27(2) of the WT Act, 1957 (the Act), at the instance of the CWT, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on fact in holding that no penalty Under Section 18(1)(a) of the WT Act for delay in submission of the WT return can be levied for the period till the date of furnishing of IT return by the assessee ?'2. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Revenue. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee.3. The assessment years under consideration are 1978-79 and 1979-80 and the relevant valuation dates are 31st March, 1978 and 31st March, 1979. For asst. yr. 1978-79, the return of wealth which was due on 31st July, 1978 was filed on 8th March, 1983. The WTO held that the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable and thus levied penalty at Rs. 26,606 Under Section 18(...
Cwt Vs. Maharaja Daljit Singhji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN355(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B, has referred the following question of law under section 27(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the instance of the CWT, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on fact in holding that no penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act for delay in submission of the wealth-tax return can be levied for the period till the date of furnishing of income-tax return by the assessee?'2. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-revenue. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee.3. The assessment years under consideration are 1978-79 and 1979-80 and the relevant valuation dates are 31-3-1978 and 31-3-1979. For assessment year 1978-79, the return of wealth which was due on 31-7-1978 was filed on 8-3-1983. The Wealth Tax Officer held that the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable and thu...
Manjibhai Govindbhai Chikani Vs. Mulji Lakha and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj183
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 136 of 2002. Four appellants in Appeal from Order No. 294 of 2002 are the original defendants Nos. 9 to 12, while eight appellants in Appeal from Order No. 295 of 2002, are original defendants Nos. 1 to 8. Both these set of appellants are aggrieved by order dated 29.06.2002, passed below Exh.5 by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot. The learned Judge was pleased to restrain defendants Nos. 9 to 12 (appellants in Appeal from Order No. 294 of 2002) from selling, transferring, assigning and constructing on plot Nos. 1 to 31 and plot Nos. 33 to 40 of revenue survey No. 110 of village Madhapar, admeasuring 20529-3 sq. yds. = 17165-18 sq. mtrs. The learned Judge was also pleased to restrain defendants Nos. 1 to 8 (appellants in Appeal from Order No. 295 of 2002) from selling, transferring, assigning and constructing on plot No. 32 of revenue survey No. 110 of village Madhapar, admeasur...
Govindbhai Nanjibhai Mekhiya Vs. Joint Secretary Revenue Department (A ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2038
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr.Desai, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf the respondent authorities and with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose in the year 1998 and thereafter on 11.1.1989 the permission for non-agricultural purpose was granted. The petitioner had to complete the construction as per the conditions of N.A. within a period of three years from the date of the order, which would come to 1992. It appears that in the year 1996 the petitioner applied for approval of revised lay-out plan by changing the location of the plots and in response that to, instead of considering the said application, show-cause notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 for breach of the condition of N.A. of not completing the construction within the stipulated time limit. The petitioner submitted reply. Ultimately on 27.5.1998 t...
Cc Vs. Shree Dev Krupa Ship Breaking
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(122)LC395(Gujarat); 2005(181)ELT14(Guj)
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. This Appeal was dismissed, initially, in absence of learned Counsel Shir Malkan for the Appellant. Thereafter, on Civil Application, being filed, it was restored and heard today itself.2. The Commissioner of Appeal decided the Appeal in favour of the respondent, against which the Appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the CESTAT. Hence, this Appeal.3. Following questions of law have been framed in this Appeal by the Appellant at Page 27, Para 6 :Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law and facts in holding that-(1) M/s. Shree Dev Krupa Ship Breaking, Sosio Ship Breaking Yard, Bhavnagar, are not importer within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Para ix) of Page 8 of CESTAT order)?(2) In the absence of specific condition (like condition No. 65 or Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 1.3.2000) stipulating the filing of fresh Bill of Entry for breaking up and creating a legal fiction in t...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC810; 2006ACJ2784
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant (original defendant) has filed this appeal against judgment and decree dated 17.8.2001 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3769 of 1990. Learned Judge by her impugned judgment held that the suit filed by Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation, plaintiff, be decreed and appellant-defendant insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 43,471.20 with interest at the rate 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit till the recovery to the plaintiff and also costs to the plaintiff.2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:2.1. Plaintiff is a statutory Corporation established with an object of providing scientific godown facilities to the private and public sector at competitive rates and it has various such centres all over the State of Gujarat. It has godowns in Ahmedabad and godown at Balaji Estate No. 17 was used for storing fertilizer bags of Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd., Vadodara...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »