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.
Bhavnaben Shamjibhai Vs. Dinesh Premjibhai Kapadia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC315; (2005)1GLR97
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr. Mrugan K Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I M Pandya learned APP for the respondent State.2. Mr.Purohit submitted that the respondent- husband Dineshbhai Premjibhai Kapadia though served through the court has not appeared.3. Having considered the reasonings advanced by the learned JMFC, Jasdan for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner wife under section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., the court is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is erroneous being misconceived.4. It is true that for non payment of the amount the husband was once sent to jail and therefore, he cannot be again sent to jail being a defaulter of the very amount during execution proceedings for the recovery of the amount. But as per the ratio of the decision in the case of Smt. Kuldip Kaur vs. Sureinder Singh & anor. reported in AIR 1989 SC 232 it has been held that' A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of enforcing recovery on the one hand a...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. M.B.R. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR997]; (2004)IIILLJ1032Guj
Heard Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government Ms. Paurami B. Sheth on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.H. Pathak for respondent.1. Rule. Mr. P.H. Pathak waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. Through this petition, the Union of India has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A.No.361 / 1999 dated 5th May, 2003 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the punishment order passed by the petitioner against the respondent, on the ground that the punishment is arbitrary and based on no evidence, therefore, liable to be quashed.3. The petitioner served charge sheet on the respondent. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent and completed. In departmental inquiry, all six charges are found to be proved by the in...
Omprakash Goel Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR1999
D.P. Buch, J.1. By way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the father of the detenu, has challenged an order dated 18/12/03, placed at Annexure 'A' page 1, whereby the detenu was detained in accordance with the provisions made in Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'COFEPOSA'). The detaining authority has recorded a finding that the detenu was required to be detained with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.2. The petitioner has challenged the said order on several grounds. It has been contended that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority, for the purpose of deciding the issue of detention, have not been supplied to the detenu. It has also been contended that certain documents which were necessary for preparing and submitting representation to the appropriate authority in accordance with Clause 5 of Article 22 o...
Umreth Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Charotar Sahkari Khand Udyo ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1723
K.A. Puj, J.1. This Appeal from Order is filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge ( S.D.), Anand, below a application Exh.19 in Special Civil Suit No.56 of 1996, whereby the learned Judge has returned the plaint for being presented to the appropriate Court on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit.2. The brief facts giving rise to present Appeal from Order are as under :The present appellant-Umreth Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. has filed Special Civil Suit No.56 of 1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge ( S.D.), Anand for recovery of Rs.39,21,866/- from the respondent-Charotar Sahakari Khand Udyog Limited. The State Government was impleaded in the suit as defendant No.3 as the repayment of deposit of Rs.24 lacs together with interest accruing thereon was guaranteed by the State Government, vide deed of guarantee executed on 31-8-1986. The deposit of Rs.24 lacs was given for a period of one year to the respondent No.1. Since the s...
Dalwadi Govindbhai Amarshibhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2767; (2004)2GLR1285
M.R. Shah, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) against the judgment dated May 19, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1993, by which the appellant is convicted of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ('the I.P.C.' for short), and sentenced to suffer R.I. for eight years and a fine of Rs. 10,000-00, in default, S.I. for one year.2. In view of the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Dev, 2003 AIR SCW 6947, we do not propose to mention the name of the victim.3. The parents of the victim reside at village Sayla. The name of her father is Dhanjibhai whereas name of her mother is Gauriben. She is married to Pravinbhai Bhopabhai of Wadhvan town. The incident in question had taken place on August 21, 1992. Fourteen days prior to the date of incident, the victim had come to her parental house to stay there. On the date of incid...
B.V. Patel and ors. Vs. Gujarat Water Supplies and Sewerage Board and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1326
J. N. Bhatt, J.1. Could a surplus employee, or a Deputationist claim Absorption or Permanency in the same cadre, instead of fresh appointment, in other organisation, on account of Government decision to close down the Corporation or the Board or the Government-Undertaking or abolition of posts, pursuant to the policy-decision of the Government, is the sole question which has come to the fore in this Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered, on 5-12-2002, in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6990 of 2002, filed by invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Let us first, shortly, but, intimately, look into the relevant and material factual profile giving rise to the aforesaid controversy, so as to effectively and efficaciously probe, examine and adjudicate the said sole question in focus.3. The appellants are the original-petitioners, ('Petitioners', for short)whereas, resp...
Parasnath Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Manager
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR59]
Jayant Patel, J.1. With the consent of the parties the matter istaken up for final hearing today.2. Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner,states that Special Civil Application No.3082/2002 whichwas ordered to be heard with this petition by the orderdated 8-3-2002 is already heard and disposed of and,therefore, he states that this petition only is onlyrequired to be heard.3. The present petition is preferred by thepetitioner for appropriate directions to Respondent No.3to recover the legal dues with interest from RespondentsNo.1 and 2 as per the Recovery Application dated6-10-2000.4. There is no dispute on the point that the awardcame to be passed on 8-3-2000 by the Commissioner underWorkmen Compensation Act and as per the said award, theamount of Rs.41,300/= with the penalty of Rs.8,260/= andthe interest at the rate of 6% and the cost of Rs.2,000/=is ordered to be paid. On the basis of the said award,the Labour Court has also issued certificate for recoveryof the said amount. ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mitaben Dharmeshbhai Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC413; 2004ACJ1996; (2004)189CTR(Guj)329; (2004)2GLR1069; [2004]269ITR63(Guj)
R. M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates.2. Rule returnable today. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda waives service of Rule.3. The petitioner before this Court is the Insurance Company against whom in a decree has been passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Valsad. In the ensuing execution proceeding being Misc. Civil (Execution) Application No. 45 of 2003 the petitioner-Insurance Company raised objection that the petitioner was not liable to deposit the entire amount of outstanding dues since the Insurance Company has deducted a sum of Rs. 69,538-00 as tax deducted at source under Section 194A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. The learned Judge, however, relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the Matter of Islamic Investment Co. v. Union of India,. Following the said judgment the Tribunal held that the amount of interest awarded to the claimants became the judgment debt and lost character as interest. The Insurance Company was ...
Floating Services Ltd. Vs. MV 'San Fransceco Dipalola'
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: [2004]52SCL762(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This suit has been presented by the plaintiff seeking arrest of defendant No. 1-Vessel, i.e., M.V. 'San Fransceco Di Paola' in the following circumstances :2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, a Limited Company, incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom and having its address as stated in the cause title, is the owner of defendant No. 1-Vessel. It is stated that the said vessel was purchased by the plaintiff from one Audrey ventures company on 27-6-2000. That thereafter the plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated 1-7-2003 with defendant No. 2 for sale of vessel for a consideration of US $ 4,00,000 and defendant No. 2 paid 10% of the said consideration. The expected time of delivery of the vessel was 7-7-2003. However, according to the plaintiff, as defendant No. 2 had not paid the entire balance consideration, no delivery was given by the plaintiff. It is further averred that defendant No. 1 - vessel was laid up at the port/Harbour of ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mitaben Dharmeshbhai Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN565(Guj)
Heard the learned advocates.2. Rule returnable today. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda waives service of rule.3. The petitioner before this court is the Insurance Company against whom a decree has been passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Valsad. In the ensuing execution proceeding being Civil Misc. (Execution) Application No. 45/2003 the petitioner-Insurance Company raised objection that the petitioner was not liable to deposit the entire amount of outstanding dues since the Insurance Company has deducted a sum of Rs. 69,538 as tax deducted at source under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).4. The learned Judge, however, relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Islamic Investment Co v. Union of India (2002) 122 Taxman 719 (Bom). Following the said judgment the Tribunal held that the amount of interest awarded to the claimants became the judgment debt and lost its character as interest. The Insurance Company was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »