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.
Siddhartha Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]137STC58(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.2.2002 passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Circle 38, Gandhidham-Kutch purported to have been passed in exercise of the powers under Sections 67 and 30AA of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the order dated 7.1.2003 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal dismissing Revision Application Nos.78 and 79 of 2002 against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. By the impugned orders, the petitioner's registration as a dealer under the Sales Tax Acts has been cancelled.2. The petitioner was granted registration under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act and the consequential registration under the Central Sales Tax Act vide registration certificate dated 21.7.1998. The certificate indicated the petitioner's address at Gandhidham and also the address of the petitioner's registered office at New Delhi. Thereafter, the As...
President of Kolavada Juth Kelavani Mandal Vs. Ranchhodbhai Ambalal Pa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR353]
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The President of Kolavada Juth Kelavani Mandal has approached this Court by filing this petition being aggrieved of a judgment and order dated 4th May, 2001 of the Primary Education Tribunal in Application No. 31/2000. The Honourable Tribunal was pleased to order that the school is bound to pay the applicant-respondent herein the salaries till 31st May, 2001 (the day on which he retired on reaching the age of superannuation.) The Honourable Tribunal is pleased to hold that the order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 31-5-2000 is not legal as the same was issued without following the procedure laid down by law, and therefore, the same is quashed. The petitioner-school is directed to pay the salaries to the applicant-respondent herein treating him to be on duty till 31st May, 2001.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher on temporary basis on 25-6-1965. In the year 1991 the respondent No. 1 became the Principal of t...
Cit Vs. Anang Polyfil (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Guj)576
M.S. Shah, J.In this reference at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred for our opinion for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that entire interest payable by the assessee in the instalments financed by ICICI was liable to be added to the cost of machinery in the computation for depreciation and investment allowance?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation at 30 per cent was allowable in respect of cost of diesel engine set for generating electricity?'2. We have heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee.3. As far as the first question in concerned, the facts, broadly stated, are as under :The as...
Cit Vs. Akme Electronics and Control (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Guj)606
M.S. Shah, J.In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion for the assessment year 1983-84 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that legal expenses incurred by the assessee-company in connection with the amalgamation of the assessee-company with another company were revenue expenses and allowable as deduction?'2. The assessee was a private limited company. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee-company amalgamated with another company. The assessee-company incurred expenditure of amalgamation to the tune of Rs. 22,711. The assessee pleaded that the said expenditure was allowable as deduction as the said expenditure was revenue expenditure. The Income Tax Officer held that the said expenditure was capital expenditure and did not allow deduction. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the ...
Kesarben Wd/O Dalpatbhai Rajabhai Harijan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2898
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP Ms. Nandini Joshi appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.2. This revision application is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dated 4.3.2003 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 130 of 2003. The application was preferred by the petitioner-widow of deceased Dalpathbhai Rajabhai Harijan, R/o of Kaliyar, District Bhavnagar for the custody of the muddamal articles at the termination of trial of Sessions Case No. 62 of 1998. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, by the judgement and order dated 19.10.2002, has convicted the two accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC etc. and both the convicts have preferred appeal against the order of conviction and sentence being Criminal Appeal No. 1035 of 2002 which is pending before this Court. After lapse of reasonable period of time, from the date of order of conviction and appeal period in the ...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Chandrakant Tapubhai Vyas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1814; (2004)IIILLJ86Guj
Jayant Patel, J.1. The question arises for consideration by this Court in this group of petition is: Whether statutory liability is attracted for payment of gratuity as per section 4(2) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] on account of subsequent revision of payscale after the date of retirement or not1.1 The second question which incidentally arise for consideration of this Court is: What shall the consequential order in view of subsequent change in the circumstances from the date of filing of the application before the Controlling Authority under the Act till the pendency of this petition, more particularly when the same relates to retiral benefits of the employees2. Short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent concerned in all these petitions were employees of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner herein. They retired from the service during the period from 1.8.1997 to 31.7.2000. There is no dispute on the point that ...
Chembond Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1241
K.A.Puj.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside of the impugned decision dated 06.01.2004 of the respondent Corporation i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, being unjust, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the tender of the petitioner Company before finalisation of the contract with any other party and if the offer of the petitioner Company is found to be the lowest, to accept the same. The petitioner has also prayed for interim relief seeking stay against the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned decision dated 06.01.2004 and against further process of finalisation of the contract in respect of the treatment of the water cooling tower.2. The factual profile emerging from the petition is that the respondent Corporation published notice i...
Bhatt Indravadan Nathalal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1365
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all these matters, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Special Civil Application No. 4716 of 2002, there are in all 11 petitioners and they have challenged Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and prayed for stay against the respondent authorities restraining them from proceeding further, pursuant to the said Notifications.3. In Special Civil Application No. 8703 of 2002, there are in all 32 petitioners and they have prayed for quashing and setting aside the land acquisition proceedings, including the Notification issued under Section 4 on 27.07.2001 and under Section 6 on 16.05.2002 and the notice issued under Section 9 on 16.07.2002. They have also prayed for stay against further proceedings in respect of the impugned land acquisition proceedings and restraining the respondent authorities from taking over the possession of the shops of the petitioners unless and until an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sinivali Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Guj)619; [2004]267ITR165(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In these references at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Mowing questions have been referred for our opinion for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86:'1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO to charge the tax at normal rate instead of maximum marginal rate? 2. 'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the interest charged under Section 217 of the Act?' 2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, in IT Ref. Nos. 67, 74 to 83 and 88 of 1997, Mr. Bharat Naik in IT Ref. Nos. 40, 43 and 44 of 1997, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt in IT Ref. Nos. 32, 36, 37, 38 & 39 of 1997 and Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt in IT Ref. Nos. 45, 46 and 47 of 1997. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessees.3. The facts found and the findings given by the Tribunal as set out in the common order of the Tribunal giving rise to these references are as under...
Krishnamurarilal G. Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR959
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent No.2 to release from acquisition and restore possession of the lands belonging to the petitioners bearing Survey No. 346/3, 350/1 and 351 situated at village Thaltej, Dist. Ahmedabad, admeasuring about 16,672 Sq. Mts. (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land'). The petitioners have also prayed for writ of prohibition against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 restraining them from allotting the subject land to any person or using it for any purpose whatsoever. The petitioners have also prayed for directions to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to make due provision for service of notice, affording opportunity of hearing and provide for compensation or transfer of rights of the petitioners in the subject land by way of compensation and/or allotment of reconstituted/Final Plot, in the Town Planning Scheme No. 37/38, (Thaltej).2. The factual profile as it emerge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »