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.
Shree Sainath Industries Vs. Sainath Auto Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1314; 2004(28)PTC377(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. This Appeal From Order is filed against the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge below notice of motion application Exh. 6 in R.C.S. No. 5492 of 2000 on 10.03.2003 whereby the interim injunction sought for in the said application was refused.2. The Appeal From Order was admitted by this Court on 26.09.2003 and rule was issued in Civil Application praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order and further praying for interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the trade name 'SAINATH' in their trade style.3. It is the case of the appellant/applicant original plaintiff that appellant has filed R.C.S. No. 5492 of 2000 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the respondent - original defendant for injunction claiming passing off action and also moved notice of motion at Exh. 6 seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the appellant's trade name 'SAINATH' or any other similar name.4. The appellant is a Regd. Partners...
Centurion Bank Limited Vs. Lersen and Tubro Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj333; (2004)3GLR1893
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates.2. These four petitions preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise from the orders refusing to grant leave to defend and the decree passed against the defendant in Special Summary Suits No. 429 of 2001; 430 of 2001; 431 of 2001 and 432 of 2001 respectively. All the four suits arose between the same parties in similar set of facts. The learned advocates agree that these petitions be heard for final disposal. Since all the petitions raise identical question, these petitions are disposed off by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are recorded as stated in Special Summary Suit No. 429/2001 alone.3. The plaintiff in the aforesaid suits is Larsen & Tubro Limited, a Public Limited Company [hereinafter referred to as, `the Plaintiff']. The defendant is the Centurion Bank Limited [hereinafter referred to as, `the Defendant']. The plaintiff and one Messrs. KND Engineering Technologies Limited [hereinafter refe...
Ajanbhai Ladhabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR1882
J.N. Bhatt 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Harsha Devani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed, on 20th March, 2003 in relation to the application of the petitioners under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 tendered for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court holding that there was a delay in making an application and therefore, the application came to be rejected. Hence, this petition under article 226 of the Constitution.2. After having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering the text and tenor of the impugned order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Palanpur and the provisions of General Clauses Act, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is palpably and patently illegal.3. It is an admitted fact and it is also manifest from the impugned o...
G.M. Thaker Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR1181]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the Learned Advocate Mr. Chirag M. Pawar on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Chudgar appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 & 4 and Learned AGP Mr.Kodekar appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 4th December, 1995 while exercising the power under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The respondent No.2 has decided not to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground that members of the Petitioner Association are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947. The affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and 4 and rejoinder is filed on behalf of petitioner. The petitioner has produced voluminous records in respect to duties and functions of the members of Petitioner Association for justification that they are the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The affidavit in reply has bee...
Creative Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Guj)6; [2004]268ITR485(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred for our opinion for asst. yr. 1984-85 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that provisions of Section 104 were rightly invoked by the assessing authority and hence additional tax levied under Section 104 was justified?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in concluding that adequate dividends were not distributed due to excess provisions made for taxes?3. Whether the order of the Tribunal confirming levy of additional tax is reasonable, it having ignored along with the order facts and relevant case law, the material fact that provision for income-tax was made on the basis of assessed figure available at the time of paying advance tax, though subsequently reduced due to rectification order passed for asst. yr. 1976-77?'2. The assessee is a company i...
Sahyog Mahila Mandal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1764
R.K. Abhichandani, J.1. These two petitions raising common questions seek to challenge the provisions of Sections 7(1)(b), 14 and 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They also challenge the notification dated 23.2.2000 issued by the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) by which the areas within the jurisdiction of Chakla Bazaar Police Station, Surat were notified rendering carrying on prostitution in any premises within those areas as an offence.Brief facts and pleadings:2. Special Civil Application No.15195 of 2003 has been filed by a public trust, registered only on 25.1.2002, purporting to be an organization consisting of 214 women in prostitution/sex work as its members at Surat. According to the petitioner-organization, it works along with other non-governmental organizations in the field of HIV/AIDS in Surat and the pr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundeep Construction (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Guj)440; [2004]269ITR343(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) at the instance of the Revenue, following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the asst, yr. 1982-83 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is an industrial company within the meaning of Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1982 and hence entitled to the benefit claimed ?'2. We have heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.3. The assessee is a building contractor and had undertaken contracts from Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation, Ahmedabad, for removal of overburden and earth excavation in lignite mineral areas of the GMDC. Sub-clause 3(a) of the agreement provided as follows :'The work required to be executed by the contractor is the removal of overburden/earth excavation in lignite mineral ar...
K.J. Dhulia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1821
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The unfortunate petitioner who has acquired permanent disability on account of complete loss of his eye sight while in service has approached this Court making a grievance that his service has been wrongly terminated by the respondents by resorting to Rule 15 of Bombay Civil Service Rules [B.C.S.R.] on the ground that he has been declared medically unfit for performing duty and now he is being paid the invalidity pension only in accordance with Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.1.1. The petitioner joined the service of the respondents as a Medical Officer and he was appointed as such with effect from 30th June, 1983 in Class-II service of the State Government and was posted under the ESI scheme. Unfortunately, after rendering about 18 years' service, the nature played a cruel trick on him and the vision of both the eyes was permanently impaired. He was, therefore, unable to perform his routine duties as Medical Officer. It appears that he was asked to remai...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ishwar Jetha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ195Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mukseh A. Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. P.K. Handa for Ms. Sunita S. Chaturvedi, learned advocate for the respondents.--------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. In this petition, the petitioners, Union of India and others have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Original Application NO. 253 of 1994 dated 11th February, 1998. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondents in service without back wages on available vacancies but this relief would not affect seniority or engagement of any person who is already in employment at present. The Tribunal also directed the Railway Authority to keep in view length of service amongst the respondents inter se while offering employment against the vacancies arising from time to time. As regards regularization, the Tribunal directe...
Cit Vs. Sundeep Construction (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004]137TAXMAN287(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. In this reference under section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the revenue, following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1982-83'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1982 and hence entitled to the benefit claimed ?'2. We have heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent - assessee.3. The assessee is a building contractor and had undertaken contracts from Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation, Ahmedabad for removal of overburden and earth excavation in Lignite Mineral areas of the GMDC. Sub-clause 3(a) of the agreement provided as follows:'The work required to be executed by the contractor is the removal of overburden/ earth excavation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »