Gujarat Court April 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.
Vaghajibhai Veljibhai Varsadavala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3414
C.K. Buch, J.1 At the request of the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, this Revision Application is finally heard and the same is disposed of by this final order at an admission stage.2. This Revision Application is preferred by four petitioners-accused persons of Sessions Case No.15/2000, facing trial of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code; and under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On the strength of the complaint filed on 13th October, 1996 an offence being C.R. No.I-295/96 came to be registered with Varachcha Road Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,149, 326 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code; and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On 14th October, 1996, the Police Sub-Inspector dealing with the investigation sent a Yadi to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,...
Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR181
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. Rule. Mr. Kogje, learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent - State.2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the direction for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 22.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gondal in Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the State.3. The petitioners are the accused who have been arrested in connection with the offence being C.R.No.I 25 of 2004 lodged with Gondal Police Station. The petitioners were arrested on 28.03.2004 in connection with the aforestated offence and they were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gondal on 29.03.2004. At the time when the petitioners were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the remand application seeking fourteen days remand of the petitioners was preferred. Learned Chief Judicial...
Sun Chem. Vs. Geb
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj331
D.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner prefers this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the demand raised by the respondents for electricity consumption charges. The said electricity consumptions charges were to be paid by the predecessor-in-title, hence the petitioner was not ready to make the payment of electricity consumption charges and therefore the petitioner could not get electricity connection and hence the petitioner has preferred the present petition.2. It is averred by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in pursuance of the advertisement, given by the respondent no. 3 - Gujarat State Financial Corporation, for public auction of the premises of M/s. Adinath Plastics, having its factory premises at Ankleswar, the petitioner offered for Rs.5,11,111/- and it was thought fit, by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation Tender Committee, to allow, the petitioner to purchase the factory premises of M/s. Adinath Plastics, Ankleswar. It is conten...
Baroda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. State of Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR80]
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule, Mr. M.R. Mengde, learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to appear for respondent No. 1. He appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Mankad appears for respondent No. 2 and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of all parties, the matter is finally heard today.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner for challenging the order dated 30th August 2003 passed by the respondent No. 1 for referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15.04.04 passed by the Industrial Tribunal below interim application in Reference [IT] No. 111 of 2003.3. Heard Mr. Patel for the petitioner, Mr. Mengde, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Mankad for respondent No. 2.4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the workmen on whose behalf the dispute was raised and which has ...
Parmeshwar Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(191)ELT86(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Ms Dharmishta Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government waives services of Rule on behalf of the respondents.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-in-appeal No. 68 dated 23.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Surat arising from the order-in-original No. 99 dated 16.7.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Division-I, Vapi by which the appellate authority reduced the amount of penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 from Rs. 4,50,000/= to Rs. 2,25,000/-3. The facts leading to this petition are as under:-3.1 The petitioner-assessee was having one Hot Air Stenter Machine containing five chambers upto the month of November, 1999 and was paying Central Excise Duty as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Ru...
Kediya Cera Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT161(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Ms Dharmishta Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.In the facts and circumstances, the petition is taken up for final disposal today,2. In this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 2-8-2002 (Annexure 'A') passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara in Appeal Nos. 592 & 593 of 2002 and the Order dated 23-9-2003 (Annexure 'B') passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. 3406 and 3410 of 2002 dismissing the appeals on the ground that the amounts involved in the two appeals were small as provided in the record proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 under which the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit an appeal in respect of an Order referred to in Clauses (b), (c) or (d) of Sub-section (1) where the amount of fine or...
Om Prakash B. Khare Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj285
K.A. Puj, J. 1. This Appeal From Order is filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara below an application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 1051 of 2001 whereby the injunction application preferred by the original plaintiff - present appellant was partly allowed and relief claimed in paragraph 21 (2) of the said application was granted and rest of the relief claimed was rejected.2. The original plaintiff - present appellant has filed the present Appeal From Order against the rejection of the relief claimed in the injunction application.3. This Appeal was admitted on 16.09.2003 and notice was issued in Civil Application No. 6539 of 2003 and parties were directed to maintain status-quo qua the possession and title of the land in question including the superstructure erected on the date of the said order i.e. on 16.09.2003. The Court has also made it clear in the said order that the status-quo qua the possession of the land will be maintained and the responde...
State of Gujarat Vs. Ahmadhusen Mahmad Khalil Ansari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3424
C.K. Buch, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1775/97. This Criminal Case came to be registered on the strength of the complaint lodged by the orig. complainant-Shahidunbibi. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are husband and mother-in-law of the orig. complainant respectively. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the charge of the offence allegedly committed by the respondents. Undisputedly, the orig.complainant had initiated maintenance proceeding in the Family Court, Ahmedabad, and in that proceeding, the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court and decided to withdraw the proceedings initiated and pending between them. This fact was brought to the notice of this Court when the State was granted leave to appeal, at that time the parties were asked to atten...
Shree Laxmi Narayan Synthetics Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT242(Guj); (2004)2GLR550
M.S. Shah, J.1. Ms. D.N. Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 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 24.2.2003 of the Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise, Mumbai in Settlement Application Nos.13 and 31 of 2000 under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under:-The petitioner is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to manufacture/process man-made fabrics. The searches carried out by the officers of the Central Excise at the premises of M/s. Balaji Industries, Surat, another processor, and it's folding and transport contractors on 6.11.1997 resulted into seizure of certain incriminating documents, indicating clandesti...
Ralli Engine Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(95)ECC415
ORDER1. Rule.Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of interim relief.2. The petition contains challenge to the discriminatory treatment being given by the Commissionerates in three different States, i.e., Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu in respect of the same product. The petitioner-Company is a manufacturer of agricultural knapsack sprayer engine which is used as a part/component in mechanical appliances for spraying pesticides in fields and farms. The product is being classified under Heading No. 84.24 in Maharashtra (manufacture-High Power Engineering Company Private Limited, Satara) and in Tamil Nadu (manufacturer-Greaves Limited, Chennai) whereas in Gujarat it is classified under Heading No. 84.07 in the petitioners' case by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise at Valsad under the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Valsad.3. The petitioners' contention is that in view of the aforesaid classification in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the petitioners' co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »