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.
Ninaben J. Andhariya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR583
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The present Special Civil Application is filed for the relief that the action of the respondents of not paying House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'HRA') with effect from 01.07.2000 to the petitioner, though the petitioner is legally entitled, be declared unjust, improper, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that a further direction be issued to respondent no.3 to pay HRA month to month to the petitioner and also arrears from 01.07.2000 till September 2001.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services on 20.02.1996 as Female Nurse. She was serving and rendering her services to the best of her abilities, was confirmed and being a confirmed Government employee is entitled to uniform service conditions and all other benefits as per the prevailing rules and regulations. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband,...
Vedprakash Khaneja Vs. Manager
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1837
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr.Gandhi for Nanavati Associates appears for respondent Nos 1 to 3 and waives service of rule and Mr.Mengdey, Ld.AGP appears for respondent No.4 and waives service of rule. With the consent of learned advocates for parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The petitioner has preferred this petition for the reliefs, interalia, for directing the respondent No.4 to investigate into the entire matter and to take action for nonpayment of minimum wages to the petitioner by the respondent company and the petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent company to pay the loan amount from his PF account lying with the company's PF trust. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the labour court to dispose of the Ref.(LCA) No.1852/01 at the earliest.3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is in employment of the respondent-Company, namely, Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (CS) Ltd(hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Co'). It is the...
Bhanuben Panchal and Chandrikaben Panchal Vs. Chief Commissioner of In ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Guj)449; [2004]269ITR27(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned standing counsel for the Revenue waives service of Rule.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.2. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dt. 14th Oct., 2003 (Annex. 'O'), passed by the Chief CIT, Surat, under Section 119(2)(a) r/w Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), granting partial waiver of interest under Section 234A of the Act and rejecting the petitioner's request for waiver of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.3. The controversy centres around waiver of interest for asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The interest was levied as under :Asst. yrs.Interest Charged (Rs.) u/s. 234Au/s. 234BU/s. 234CTotal1992-932.62,9491,66.92513.4424,43,3161993-9495,12081,5716,1221,82,8131994-9565,84257,3826,1431,29,367 4,23,9113.05,87825.7077,55,496Original petitioner-Smt. Shantaben ...
Trusuns Chemical Industry Ltd. Vs. Tata International Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj274; (2004)2GLR1352
P. B. Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioner of this Civil Revision Application is the original opponent of Execution Petition No. 610 of 2001, pending before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The said petition is preferred by the present respondent, Tata International Ltd., for enforcement of a foreign award. In the aforesaid application, the petitioner herein, who is the original opponent of that application has raised various preliminary objections, which are negatived by the trial Court. The petitioner-original opponent has approached this Court by way of this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. Since, the present petitioner has also filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gandhidham, the present petitioner has also filed an application under Section 24 of C.P.C., being M.C.A. No. 1501 of 2002, for transfer of Execution Petition pending in the City Civil Court to the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gandhidham. The present respond...
Jayeshbhai @ Panchabhai Muljibhai Satodiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2654
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. Rule. Mr. P.R. Abichandani, learned APP for the opponent No. 1 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004, Mr. K.J. Shethna, learned Senior Counsel for the opponent No. 2 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004 and opponent No. 1 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 102 of 2004, Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel for opponent No. 3 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004 and opponent No. 2 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 102 of 2004, Mr. R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the opponent No. 4 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004 and opponent No. 3 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 102 of 2004 respectively waive service of notice of rule.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 92 of 2004 has been filed by the original complainant-Jayeshbhai Panchabhai Muljibhai Satodiya while Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2004 has been filed by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 and also read with Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order...
Principal Shri Jivkor Vanita Vishram Vs. Savita Saymon Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR673
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether a class of teacher is covered under the definition of 'employee' in Clause [e] of Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [for short the Act] and whether the teacher is entitled to the benefits of the Payment of Gratuity under the Act, is the sole question, which is placed directly in focus in this petition before us, upon a reference made by the Learned Single Judge, staling that in a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of 'Shantiben L.Christian v. Administrative Officer', 2001 [2] GLH-389, has settled the law that a teacher does not fall within the definition of an 'employee' prescribed under Section 2[e] of the Act. Notwithstanding that, it is observed in the reference by the learned Single Judge that it is expedient, that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 'Jyotindranath Roy V/s Surendra Bikram Singh Agrwal', 1996[4] SCC-403 [AIR 1999 SC 1736], it has been held that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, would ...
Bhanuben Panchal and Chandrikaben Panchal Vs. Chief Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN237(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.Rule. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned standing counsel for the revenue waives service of Rule.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.2. What is challenged in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 14-10-2003 (Annexure 'O') passed by the Chief Commissioner, Surat under section 119(2)(a) read with sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') granting partial waiver of interest under section 234A of the Act and rejecting the petitioners request for waiver of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act.3. The controversy centres around waiver of interest for assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The interest was levied as under :Asst. YearsInterest Charged u/s 234Au/s 234Bu/s 234CTotal1992-932,62,9491,66,92513,4424,43,3161993-9495,12081,5716,1221,82,8131994-9565,84257,3826,1431,29,367 4,23,911 3,05,87825,7077,55,496Original petitioner-Sm...
Bank of Baroda Retired Officers' Association and Anr. Vs. Chairman and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ720Guj
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. All these matters are notified for final hearing at Serial No. 4. In the morning, Mr. Devesh A.Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application Nos.1844 of 2002 and 1794 of 2002, requested for time, which was declined. Thereafter, the learned Advocate remained present and the hearing of the matters started. Mr. B.G.Jani, learned Advocate for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 2650 of 1999, made his submissions. Mr. Devesh A.Bhatt, the learned Advocate, was present through out in the first sitting. In the second sitting, Mr. Devesh, A.Bhatt, the learned Advocate, is not present. On completion of submissions made by Mr. B.G.Jani, learned Advocate for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 2650 of 1999, Mr. Darshan M.Parikh, learned Advocate for the respondents appearing in all the matters, is heard and all these petitions are decided by this common judgement.2. All these petitions have a common question regar...
Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Guj)233; [2004]270ITR467(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the notice for reassessment of the petitioner-company's wealth for the asst. yr. 1997-98 under Section 17 of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wt Act') read with the reasons as contained in the communication dt. 28th Jan., 2004 (Annex. 'F1', pp. 25-27).2. Although challenge to the notice dt. 26th March, 2002 may, prima facie, appear to be belated, in view of the fact that reasons have been communicated only very recently on 28th Jan., 2004, the petition cannot be considered as having been filed at a belated stage. The petitioner-company has already filed return in response to the notice under Section 17 of the WT Act and by submissions dt. 19th Feb., 2004, the petitioner has lodged its objections to the notice for reassessment after having received the aforesaid reasons as contained in the communication dt. 28th Jan., 2004.3. It is, however, not necessary to go into the merits o...
Dawood Osman Kumbhar Vs. Umar Ahmad Juneja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3175
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. B.B.Naik and learned advocate Mr. N.V.Anjaria appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 to 15. Name of Respondent No.10 has been deleted vide order dated 26.8.2003.2. The present petitioner is the original complainant of first information report registered with Mandvi Police Station against the respondents being Crime Register No. I-39 of 2001. It is in connection with an incident occurred on 7.4.2001 and after the investigation, persons named in the complaint have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506(2), 143, 147 and 149 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. For the same incident one another offence was also came to be registered with the very police station being Crime Register I-38 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 307, 243, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2) of IPC and Section 135 of Bombay Police...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »