Gujarat Court June 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.
Ambalal Somabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR557
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Shri K.P.Raval, Learned AGP waives of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. In the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara dated 5.4.2002 confirmed by the State Government in Revision Application by its order dated 21.5.2003 by which the application of the petitioners for declaration of permanent tenant under Section 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been rejected.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners i.e. Somabhai Bhikhabhai Parmar was cultivating land bearing R.S.No.1033 paiki admeasuring 2 acres and 27 gunthas of land situated at Village Bapod, Taluka District Vadodara and they are the heirs of deceased Somabhai and as Somabhai was a tenant of the land in que...
Somabhai Maganbhai Darji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj356; (2004)3GLR2287
M.S. Shah, J.1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is order dated 31/5/2003 passed by the State Government confirming the order dated 17/4/2002 passed by the Collector, Kheda upholding the action of the Municipality in revising the assessment for the purpose of levy and collection of property tax, water tax, drainage tax and education cess on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Administrator of the Dakor Municipal Borough on 30/3/2001 at Annexure 'A' (colly.).2. By resolution No.91 dated 30/3/2001 the Administrator of the Municipal Borough resolved to follow necessary legal procedure for revision of assessment at the interval of four years as per the provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By resolution No.92 the Administrator resolved to collect education cess as stipulated in Section 12 of the Gujarat Education Cess Act,1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cess Act'). By r...
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(185)ELT231(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. RULE. Ms DN 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 order dated 6-2-2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai in Stay Application No. 2515/2003 in Appeal No. E/3667/2003 arising out of the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-8-2003.3. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board had issued a letter of intent to the petitioner - Company on 30-4-1997 for supplying material handling plants for the power project of MSEB. The said project was financed by the World Bank. On 28-8-1995, the Government of India had issued Central Excise Notification No. 108 of 1995 exempting, the supplies, made to the project financed by the World Bank. The petitioner filed declaration dated 27-4-1998 claiming exemption under the ...
Krunal Oil Marketing Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: [2005]142STC366(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Siraj Gori, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This is a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing and setting aside orders dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure-A) where under the respondents have have ordered attachment of goods of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 4,31,750/- and directed the petitioner to furnish necessary security to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs (Approx.) under Section 30B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (the Act) on or before 5/1/2004.3. The facts as averred in the petition are that respondent No. 2 visited business premises of the petitioner on 19/8/2003 and impounded various Books of Accounts maintained by the petitioner relevant to the year 2001-2002. On 26/8/2003 respondent No. 2 passed impugned 'provisional attachment' order under Section...
Sureshkumar Ramshakal Pandey Vs. Municipal Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR1169]; (2004)IIILLJ798Guj
ORDERD.H. Waghela, J.1. This reference came up before this larger Bench by the order dated March 11, 2004 on account of the difference perceived between the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1999 (2) SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1, and the two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court. The issue arose out of the interpretation and application of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the 'Act' for short).2. The contention on behalf of the workmen was that, as decided by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 358 of 2002 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1319 of 2003, the workman was entitled to, during pendency of the proceedings against an award of reinstatement, wages, as were payable to the workman as the minimum wages. This view was sought to be supported by the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 358 of 2002, wherein the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank (supra) was not referred and the ord...
Kartik Kirtibhai Parekh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR361
C.K. Buch1. The petitioners of both these Revision Applications, preferred under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are the orig. accused nos. 3 and 4 of Criminal Case Nos. 2987/2001 and 2988/2001, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmedabad Rural, filed by the respondent no. 2-orig. complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act').2. Considering the points involved in both these Revision Applications, on consensus this Revision Applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The case of the respondent no. 2-orig.complainant, Pinnacle Finstock Pvt. Ltd., a broker engaged in sale and purchase of shares on the basis of brokerage, is that their company had transactions of sale and purchase of shares with the orig.accused no. 1-Classic Credit Ltd. and that there was outstanding amount...
Salim Yunus Sopariwala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4014; (2005)1GLR331
C.K. Buch, J.1. The present Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner-orig. accused no.1 of Criminal Case No.1059/95, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Pardi, facing criminal trial of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 r/w. 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act').2. The order under challenge dated 29th June, 2001, is of rejection of application praying for discharge by the present petitioner and by the said order further directed to send the third sample for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'CFL'). It is contended that the third sample, consequent to the order under challenge sent to the CFL on 4th July, 2001, has been declared adulterated within the meaning of provisions of the PFA Act. At this stage it is relevant to note that immediately after the order under challenge passed on 29th June, 2001, the petitioner-accused had prayed for suspen...
Kamdar Ladat Simiti of Nanikram Shobraj Mills Ltd. and Asso. Uni. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: [2005]125CompCas740(Guj); (2005)1GLR166; [2004]56SCL409(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred by one Kamdar Ladat Samiti of Nanikram Shobraj Mills Limited and its associated units through its President one Shri Premshankar Tiwari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders made by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') on 31/12/1997 in Case No. 24 of 1996 under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27/7/1998. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :'30. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner prays as under :(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the order of the BIFR dated December 31,1997, in Reference Application No.24/96, under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Spe...
Kothari Oil Products Co. Vs. National Dairy Development Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC512(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. All these petitions, though filed by five different petitioners, are filed against the common respondents viz. (i) National Dairy Development Board and (ii) State of Gujarat in its Finance Department. Special Civil Application No. 1673 of 1991 contains the following prayers, which are identical in the other four petitions :-(A) to declare that Rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 in so far as it restricts the claim of set off of sales-tax where the same is restricted to 90% in those cases where in the invoices the same is not separately recovered, is bad and illegal and be pleased to declare that the fraction (9/10) of the said formula is bad and illegal;(B) to command the first respondent-National Dairy Development Board :(i) to issue corrected invoice in respect of supply of palm oil and mustard oil by separately showing the amount of sales-tax charged under the invoice; and(ii) to issue Form No.40 in respect of rapeseed oil purchased by the petitioner from th...
Savitaben Govindbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3651
C.K. Buch, J.1. The present Revision Application has been preferred, against the issuance of notification under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad; directing all the petitioners (orig.accused) of the Criminal Case i.e. M-Case No. 2/03, pending under investigation with the Karanj Police Station of Ahmedabad City, to appear before the said Court; invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 r/w. Sections 397 and 482 of the Code.2. The learned counsel Mr. S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, has pointed out the basic infirmities in the notification; that the petitioners are not given 30 exclusive days to surrender and that by itself makes the notification ineffective and invalid and, therefore, no proceedings under Section 82 of the Code can be initiated. According to petitioners, the notification...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »