Gujarat Court February 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.
Dashrathbhai Bholidas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC406; 2004CriLJ4369; (2004)3GLR1921
R.P. Dholakia, J, 1. Rule. Mr.A.D.Oza, learned Public Prosecutor with r.R.J.Dave, learned counsel for the complainant and r.K.G.Vakharia, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Tushar ehta, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the espondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.2. These three applications have been filed under ec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as they are in udicial custody in connection with Crime Register o.I-452 of 2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station or the alleged commission of offences punishable under Secs. 167, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B of he Indian Penal Code and Sec. 46 of the banking egulation Act.3. As all these applications arise out of a common rime register number of Naranpura Police Station, all hese applications are heard together and are being ecided by this common order.4. The case in short is that a complaint was filed y the complainant on 30-8-2002 alleging that the Board f Directors and other office bearers of Visnagar Nagrik o-...
State of Gujarat Vs. Manubhai Mangaldas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR579; (2004)IIILLJ1099Guj
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. Instant appeal for enhancement of sentence, filed under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment dated January 13, 1992, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhtar, District : Surendranagar, in Criminal Case No.144 of 1991, by which the respondent is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 94 of The Factories Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) for contravention of Rule 3-A of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 ('the Rules' for short) for second time and imposed sentence of fine of Rs.275/-, in default, S.I. for 15 days.2. The respondent is owner of Gujarat Ginning Industries located at Station Road, Lakhtar, which is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m)(i) of the Act. He is occupier of the factory and is in management of the same. The Factory Inspector, Surendranagar had visited the factory of the respondent on May 15, 1991 and found that the respondent was using building as factory withou...
Smt. Daxaben Kuberbhai Pandya Vs. P.V. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1347
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Schedule-I of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment of Primary Teachers), Rules, 1970, on the ground that the qualifications for eligibility for appointment of a candidate as Primary Teacher laid down therein are violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed by Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution.2. According to the petitioner, she had passed Secondary School Certificate Examination of the Maharashtra Secondary School Certificate Board with Gujarati as medium of instruction in June, 1982. Thereafter, she successfully completed Diploma in Education from a college aided by the Maharashtra Government. She shifted from Maharashtra to Gujarat in 1985 and pursuant to an advertisement dated 3rd October, 1986, by which applications were invited for the post of Primary Teachers by the District Primary Education Committee, Bhavnagar, she applied for the same. According to her, she was called for ...
Vinodbhai @ Mafatbhai Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1049
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Desai waives service of Rule for respondent-Slate of Gujarat.2. The applicant-accused has prayed for regular bail in this application till final disposal of his above appeal on the ground that he is in Jail since last 4 years and his appeal is of only 2002 and there are no chances of early hearing of his appeal, therefore, considering the fact that the applicant-accused is convicted on purely circumstantial evidence, he should be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of this appeal. It is also, submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the applicant-accused that during this period of 4 years he has been released once on furlough, once on parole and thrice on temporary bail and that every time he surrendered in time and no untoward incident has taken place and that he himself abide by the terms and conditions of the temporary bail. Therefore, he submitted that the applicant-accused be now released on regular bail on any suitable ...
R.R. Payak and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR256]; (2004)3GLR497
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The present petition is filed seeking the relief to quash and set aside order of termination dated 21st August, 1996, punishment order dated 6th May, 1995 and undertaking or purshis filed by the then petitioner (as the petitioner expired on 24.04.2000, his heirs are on record) on 24th February, 1997.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased petitioner, serving as a Depot Manager at Radhanpur Depot of the respondent No. 1-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short), was served with an order bearing No. 77/1995 stopping his annual increment for a period of one year with permanent effect, as it was found that he had committed breach of clauses 11, 22, 24(a), 24(b) and 27 of the 'Discipline and Appeal Procedure for the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Employees' ('the Procedure' for short). It was also found that on 6th January, 1994, a car bearing Registration No. GJJ-7010 was found to have been tran...
ioc Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(97)ECC221; 2005(186)ELT271(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the judgment and order dated 23.3.2001 of the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.E-2628/99-C in so far as the Tribunal only partly allowed the petitioner's appeal to the extent of setting aside penalty of Rs.13,90,86,359/- levied by the Assessing authority on petitioner -Indian Oil Corporation Ltd..2. In view of the fact that this Court proposes to pass an order of remand to the Tribunal, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that by order dated 25.8.1999, the Commissioner of Central Excise levied central excise duty to the tune of Rs.14,36,74,091/- and an identical sum was directed to be paid by way of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum was also levied.3. The petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation, a public sector undertaking, had...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1638
M.S. Shah, J.1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the judgment and order dated 23-3-2001 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E-2628/ 99-C insofar as the Tribunal only partly allowed the petitioner's appeal to the extent of setting aside penalty of Rs. 13,90,86,359/- levied by the Assessing authority on petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.2. In view of the fact that this Court proposes to pass an order of remand to the Tribunal, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that by order dated 25-8-1999, the Commissioner of Central Excise levied central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 14,36,74,091/- and an identical sum was directed to be paid by way of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum was also levied.3. The petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation, a public sector undertaking, ha...
Bharatbhai Dahyabhai Vaghari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2599
C.K. Buch, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by ld. APP Mr. Pandya for the respondent State. By consent of the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The applicant has preferred this application for condonation of delay caused in preferring criminal appeal against the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The applicant accused is undergoing imprisonment imposed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.41/99 vide judgment and order dated 2.6.2001. It is submitted by the applicant accused that he is in jail and not aware about his right to file an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence and so he could not prefer an appeal in time. The 2nd ground placed before the Court for praying for condonation of delay is that when he was appraised about his right to file an appeal, he started making arrangements for expenses and he being poor, could not arrange for the amount required for the purpose as he is hailing...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Akme Electronics and Control Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]267ITR396(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the revenue,the following question of law has been referred for ouropinion for the assessment year 1983-84 :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in law inholding that legal expenses incurred by theassessee Company in connection with theamalgamation of the assessee Company with anotherCompany were revenue expenses and allowable asdeduction ?'2. The assessee was a Private Limited Company.During the relevant accounting year, the assessee-Companyamalgamated with another Company. The assessee-Companyincurred expenditure of amalgamation to the tune ofRs.22,711/-. The assessee pleaded that the saidexpenditure was allowable as deduction as the saidexpenditure was revenue expenditure. The Income-taxOfficer held that the said expenditure was capitalexpenditure and did not allow deduction. The assesseefiled appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appea...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anang Polyfil Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]267ITR266(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the revenueunder Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961('the Act' for short), the following questions have beenreferred for our opinion for the assessment years 1982-83and 1983-84 :1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas right in law in holding that entireinterest payable by the assessee inthe instalments financed by ICICI wasliable to be added to the cost ofmachinery in the computation fordepreciation and investment allowance ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in law in holding thatdepreciation at 30% was allowable inrespect of cost of diesel engine set forgenerating electricity ?' 2. We have heard Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned standingcounsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears forthe respondent-assessee.3. As far as the first question in concerned, thefacts, broadly stated, are as under :-The assessee had purchased machiner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »