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.
U.G. Dalsania Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR453]
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service at annexure-D and also the orders dismissing his First and Second Appeals at annexures-F and I respectively.1.1. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Executive Engineer (O & M) in Gondal Division of the respondent - Board. He was served with the chargesheet wherein alleged acts of misconduct committed by him were narrated. The main allegation against him was that despite clear instructions from the higher quarters, not to examine doubtful meters at the local level, and to send them either to Sabarmati or to Bavla for inspection, he got checked in all 11 meters at Gondal. If was further alleged that one Mr. B.H. Jani had carried out test at Gondal at the instance and upon insistence of the petitioner and had certified them to be in order. inspite of the fact that they were found to be defective and tampered with. It is also the allegation against him that he had asked s...
Proto Pumps and Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissione ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ677Guj
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3-4-2002 and the order dated 19-4-2002 passed by the Provident Fund Authority under Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the petitioner company is ordered to pay the amount of Rs.1,99,789, as contribution to provident fund and subsequently as per the order dated 19-4-2002, the review application is also dismissed.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, inter alia, that the appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the impugned decision before the Tribunal. However, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not available and, therefore, for the purpose of interim protection, there is no forum available and, therefore, this ...
Shivram Vishwanath Deshmukh Vs. P. Saxena, Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)370; [2005]277ITR363(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. All these petitions pertain to the order of purchase dt. 13th Sept., 1996 passed by the Appropriate Authority at Ahmedabad under Section 269UD of the IT Act, 1961. Although the petitioners are not required to be decided on merits for the reasons stated hereafter, it is necessary to refer to the basic facts for the purpose of moulding the reliefs.2.1 On 25th Jan., 1996, Shri Shivram Vishwanath Deshmukh (aged about 60 years) (Vendor No. 1) and Shri Vishvas Vishwanath Deshmukh (aged about 58 years) (Vendor No. 2) for himself and as the Karta of HUF consisting of himself and his son, Shri Ravindra Vishvas Deshmukh (aged about 30 years) (hereinafter referred to as 'the vendors'), executed an agreement to sell the property bearing CTS No. 573, Final Plot No. 662 of TP Scheme No. 1, at Bhamburda, i.e., Shivajinagar in District Pune, sub-district Haveli, in favour of Shri Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (aged about 56 years) and Shri Prakash Rasiklal Dhariwal (aged 31 years) (here...
Khanbhai Esoofbhai Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(186)ELT404(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government waives service of Rule for 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 communication dated 8-1-2004 (Annexure 'L') from the Superintendent, Central Excise, AR-1, SBY-Alang and the endorsement below the same addressed to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the outstanding Government dues arising from the Order-in-Original No. BVR/764 to 807/97, dated 24-12-1997/5-1-1998.3. We have heard Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar and the Superintendent of Central Excise, ASBY, Alang, the respondents herein.4. It appears that the above numbered order-in-original was ...
Gujarat Industrial Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. D.G. Jobanputra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR496]; (2004)3GLR2753
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.A.H.Mehta appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Tushar Mehta for the respondent workman.2. In the present petition, the petitioner bank has challenged the award passed by the labour court, Rajkot in Reference No.1001 / 1983 whereby the labour court has set side the order of termination and directed the petitioner to pay 30 % benefits for the period from 24th June, 1983 to the date of retirement 31st October, 1991 and other benefits also according to the standing orders that are required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent workman.3. Learned advocate Mr.A.H.Mehta submitted that the respondent was working as the Branch Manager at the relevant time in the petitioner bank in the Branch at Bhavnagar. Service of the respondent was terminated on the basis of the misconduct by order dated 24th June, 1983 and that order was challenged before the labour court. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta has contended that before...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bansilal Shankerlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR431
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.1.1986 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad at Narol in Sessions Case No.120 of 1985 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.2. The accused was charged with the offence of committing murder of Savjibhai Nanjibhai Thakkar at Dholka at 5-30 PM on 30.8.1985. The prosecution case, as per the complaint lodged by Amrutlal Savjibhai, son of the deceased at 8-30 PM on the same evening, was that at 5-30 that evening, the deceased had gone to the wada near the house of the complainant for giving grass to their buffalo when there was altercation between the accused and the deceased, and the accused got excited and picked up a PAVDA (an agricultural equipment like a shovel with a 60 degree angle between the iron pan and the wooden handle) lying in the wada and gave the first blow on the forehead of the deceased and when the deceased was falling down on the ground...
Kirpalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardipsingh Lobana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1211
C. K. Buch, J.1. The petitioner of Special Criminal Application No. 1229 of 2003 is the original accused of Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 tried and convicted by the learned J.M.F.C., 4th Court, Vadodara for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. I. Act') and the petitioner of other petition i.e. Special Criminal Application No. 209 of 2004 is the original complainant of said criminal case.2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, both these petitioners are referred to as accused and complainant respectively.3. The accused Salvinder Kaur Hardipsingh Lubana has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the following main reliefs mentioned in Para 12 of the memo of the petition :-'(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 dated 4-10-2002 and the same orde...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Guj)492; [2005]275ITR284(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these references pertain to the same assessee. Income-tax Reference No.167 of 1989 is for the assessment year 1982-83, while Income-tax Reference No.189 of 1989 is for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. In both these references, the following common question of law has been referred for our opinion:-'Whether, in law and on facts, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that C.C.S. (cash compensatory support) and Duty Draw Back received by the assessee would constitute income derived from an industrial undertaking and eligible for relief u/s.80J of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee in this case is a Company engaged in the manufacture of Ossein and D.C. Phosphate. The I.T.O., completed the assessments under Section 143(3) and in doing so, allowed relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Commissioner of Income-tax on perusal of the record opined that the orders of the ITO for the years under consider...
Kirpalsingh Pratap Singh Ori Vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh Lobana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3786
C.K. Buch, J.1. The petitioner of Special Criminal Application NO.1229 of 2003 is the original accused of Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 tried and convicted by the learned JMFC, 4th Court, Vadodara for offence punishable under section 138 of Netotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) and the petitioner of other petition i.e. Special Criminal Application NO. 209 of 2004 is the original complainant of said Criminal Case.2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, both these petitioners are referred to as accused and complainant respectively.3. The accused Salvinder Kaur Hardipsingh Lubani has moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the following main reliefs mentioned in para 12 of the memo of the petition.(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 dated 4.10.2002 and the same orders confirmed by...
Pareshkumar Rameshchandra Thakkar Vs. Vijay Commercial Cooperative Ban ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC450; [2005]124CompCas311(Guj); (2005)1GLR310
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, dated 19th April 1993 allowing the review preferred by the petitioner and also the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 17th March 1992 at Annexure. B to the petition.2. The short facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner was proprietor of M/s. Anand Traders which had taken cash credit facilities from the respondent No.1 Bank. The petitioner as well as the mother of the petitioner, i.e. respondent No.2 herein stood as sureties. 2.1 Due to the default committed by the principal borrower in repayment of the said cash credit facilities, respondent No.1 Bank filed Arbitration Suit No.323 of 1984, which was instituted against the principal borrower as well as against the petitioner and respondent No.2 being sureties.2.2 The contention raised by the petitioner in this petition is that during the pendency of the Arbitration Suit, the principal borrower had expired o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »