Gujarat Court March 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.
Core Healthcare Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas77(Guj); (2004)3GLR706; [2004]54SCL138(Guj); [2005]139STC116(Guj)
M.S. Shah J.1. Both these petitions are filed by the same company-Core Healthcare Limited which has set up--(i) four projects at village Sachana, Near Viramgam in Ahmedabad (Rural) District for manufacturing I. V. Fluids, health care products and pharmaceutical products in or about 1984 ; and(ii) a project at village Rajpur, Taluka Kadi in Mehsana District for manufacturing I. V. Fluids and pharmaceutical products in or about 1988. Special Civil Application No. 9027 of 2003 pertains to sales tax dues for the projects at village Sachana and Special Civil Application No. 9028 of 2003 pertains to sales tax dues for the project at village Rajpur. Both the petitions raise common questions of law and fact and are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Both the petitions raise a common question about powers of the State Government in the Sales Tax Department to recover sales tax dues from the petitioner-company on the products being sold by it. The petiti...
Express Hotels Private Ltd. thro' Managing Director Vs. State of Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj282; (2004)2GLR1683
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a `Hotel' within the meaning of the Gujarat Tax on Luxuries [Hotel & Lodging Houses] Act, 1977 {hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1977'}.3. It is not disputed that the petitioner is liable to pay taxes under the Act of 1977. However, in the year 1977, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Act of 1977 before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 405 of 1979. The said petition came to be dismissed on 23rd July, 1980. The judgment and order of this Court came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 338 of 1981 and 339 of 1981 by its judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1989. During the pendency of the aforesaid litigation, in view of the interim stay granted by this Court and latter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner did not pay taxes payable under the Act of 1977. Since the dismissal of the appeal on 2nd...
Govindji Chhabaji Vs. Prant Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj309
M.R. Shah, J.1. The petitioners, who are owners of block No. 431 situated at Village Kujad, Taluka Dascroi, have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 22.9.1993 passed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, dismissing Revision Application and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad, dated 30th December 1988 by which the Collector, Ahmedabad, has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam dated 20th August 1988 in cancelling the Entry No. 1729.2. The petitioners had purchased the land bearing block No. 431 situated in Village Kujad, Taluka-Dascroi by registered Sale Deed from the respondent No. 4 herein and names of the petitioners were entered into the Record of Rights vide Entry No. 1729 dated 13th March 1987 which was certified on 2.5.1987. That the said Entry No. 1729 dated 13th March ...
Uco Bank Vs. Rajnikant A. Sachania
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR895]
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Oral Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : R.K. Abichandani,J.) on 28.8.2003. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition directing the appellant to consider the case of the Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? respondent accordingly for promotion as clerk, as per the rules of promotion from the date on which he became due under Clause 4.6(ii) on the basis of his higher educational qualification from the date on which his immediate junior came to be promoted to such cadre, at the earliest, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of the writ of the said order.2. The respondent applied for the post of Peon on October 11, 1977 when he was a Non Matriculate; in the year 1978, he appeared for the SSC Examination with prior permission of the Board and passed the examination; he was, thereafter, appointed as a peon by the Bank on November 16, 197...
Mistri Jayantilal Maganlal thro' Poh Bharatbhai Damodarda Vs. Prajapat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR537
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The present Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-1-97, passed by the learned 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Regular civil Appeal No. 71 of 1996, by which the appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent No. 1 by setting aside the order dated 15-7-96, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Visnagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 1993.2. The brief facts of the case are as under :Respondent No. 1 herein instituted a civil suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 1993, for a declaration and injunction against the respondent No. 2-Panchayat, restraining the said Gram Panchayat from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit plot which is in possession of the plaintiff and which belongs to the Gothva Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff has also sought for a declaration against the Gothva Gram Panchayat that the notice dated 4-8-1993 given to him by the respondent No. 2 is illegal. In the said s...
Karimaben K. Bagad Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3321; (2004)3GLR670
D.P. Buch, J.1. The petitioner above named, has preferred thispetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing andsetting aside an order passed by respondent no.4 hereinunder section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign ExchangeManipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (forshort, 'SAFEMA') dated 23.3.1993 placed atAnnexure 'G' Page no.45 and subsequent order of theAppellate Tribunal being No.F.P.A.No.28/AHD/93 dated7.12.1995 placed at Annexure 'H', page No.81 against thepetitioner.2. It appears from the record that on 25.2.1977, thehusband of petitioner - Karim Bachubhai who was detainedby order under section 3(2) of the Conservation ofForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling ActivitiesAct, 1974 (for short, 'COFEPOSA act'). The said orderwas challenged by filing a writ petition being SpecialCriminal Application No.101/77. On 3.8.1977 when thesaid matter was being argued before the Court a point wasraised that the petition ...
Keyur Bipinchandra Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR474
C.K. Buch, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court are accused Nos. 9 and 10 in the Criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.2 Bank, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 114 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners pray that invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings initiated by respondent Bank through its officer Shri Bharatkumar Ambalal Panchal, be quashed as the same is bad and unsustainable on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 5 of the memo of petition.2. I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Gupta for the petitioners, Mr. A.D. Oza, Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and Mr. B.B. Naik for the complainant Bank.3. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that they are wrongly dragged into a sensitive litigation, though they were not party to any of the transactions referred to in the complaint filed before the Police. Initially the complaint was filed in ...
Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai Vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj300
K.A. Puj, J.1. This Appeal From Order is filed against the order passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara on 27.06.2003 below an application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 605/2003 whereby the interim relief prayed for by the original plaintiffs was refused.2. It is the case of the appellants - original plaintiffs that one Chandulal Mulji Parikh and deceased Dhulabhai, father of the appellants had purchased a land bearing Survey Nos. 459/2, 464, 465, 466/1, 466/2, in all admeasuring Acre 6.19 Gunthas of village Atladra, Tal. & Dist. Baroda from one Parvatibai Ingle, by Regd. Sale Deed dated 29.03.1961. Though the property was purchased by deceased Dhulabhai Patel and though the consideration was paid by him from the fund of his Hindu Undivided Family, the name of respondent No.1 i.e. Chandrakant Dhulabhai was shown as the purchaser of the said property along Shri Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh as the respondent No.1 was the eldest son of deceased Dhulabhai Patel and th...
Jivraj Mehta Smarak Trust Sanchalit Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR828]; (2004)3GLR2628; (2004)IIILLJ990Guj
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr.Mehta waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the warrant issued by the PF authorities dated 30.10.03 for recovery of amount as per order dated 24.9.00 passed under section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and Misc.Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Heard Ms.Nanavaty for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta for the respondent.4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal against the order under section 7A dated 2.4.91 is preferred before the Appellate Tribunal under Act and the application for waiver of condition of the pre-deposit of 75% was made and below the said application the presiding officer of the tribunal had passed order, dated 26.6.03 whereby the appellant was directed to deposit amount of 40%. Ms. Nanavaty has...
Shri Kamlesh Kanaiyalal Jani C/O Mukesh Kanaiyalal Jani Vs. Oriental B ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ149Guj
M.R. Shah, J.1. The petitioner, who was at the relevant time, serving as a Branch Manager with the respondent Bank, has filed this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring the provisions of Regulation 8 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officers, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982 are unguided and uncanalised and violating the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent to which the said provisions purports to confer blanket powers on the disciplinary authority not to institute departmental inquiry in respect of any of the minor penalty as specified in Regulation 4 thereof. It is also further prayed by the petitioner for declaring the action of the respondents in appropriating the sum of Rs. 24,000 representing the Bank's Contribution to the petitioner's Provident Fund and Rs. 18,000 representing Gratuity dues of the petitioner as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »