Gujarat Court July 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.
R.M. Shah Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR23]; (2004)3GLR2646
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1.1 The petitioner, by way of this petition, has challenged the decision of the respondent - Insurance Company, whereby, a penalty of reduction in the basic pay by eighteen steps in the time scale applicable to the petitioner was imposed and the petitioner was ordered to be placed at the bottom of the scale in Grade I and the period during which the petitioner was under suspension was ordered to be treated as 'period not spent on duty'.2.1 The broad facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Development Inspector in the respondent - Company in the year 1974. While the petitioner was working as a Development Inspector in the respondent - Company, a chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner by the Competent Authority of the respondent, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to his duty and had acted in a manner which was highly unbecoming of a Public Servant, by committing gross misconduct, in as ...
Chavda Amitkumar Dineshbhai Vs. A.U. Patel Vice Chancellor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR545
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the students who had to appear in TYBA Examination to be conducted by the University at the college of the respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the programme declared by the University for conducting examination, copy whereof is produced at annexure 'B' the examination of paper IX was scheduled on 29.4.04 and for paper X was scheduled on 30.4.04. As per the pattern of college paper IX would be of Experimental Psychology and the paper X would be of Psychology of Sex & Married Life. It is the case of the petitioners that on 29.4.04 in the notification it was mentioned that there will be holiday for the students of Psychology and therefore the students including the petitioners herein considered that the examination of paper IX, i.e. Experimental Psychology will be held on 3.5.04 and they prepared themselves for paper X of Psychology of Sex & Married Life as if to be held on 30.4.04. Howe...
Maniben S. Pandya Vs. Shashikant P. Shrigalor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC453; 2005ACJ592; (2004)3GLR1878
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad (Navsari) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 572 of 1988 dated June 18, 1992 has been challenged through this appeal.2. The claimants are the mother, wife and children of the deceased Gunvantrai Shanabhai Pandya (35). They claimed compensation of Rs. 3,50,500/- for death of Gunvantrai Pandya (deceased) in the motor accident which took place on February 27, 1987 at 12-30 p.m. on National Highway No. 8 within the local limits of village Nandigam. Deceased was the driver of Truck No. GTJ-7140 owned by M/s. Shyam Transport Company, Nadiad. He was coming towards Ahmedabad. This truck was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The allegation is that the Truck No. MXL-7897 owned and driven by Opponent No. 2 and insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. coming from the opposite direction going towards the (sic.) Bombay collided with the truck of the deceased after coming into his side of the road. A...
Shantaben R. Choksi (Decd.) Through Lrs. Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Guj)491; [2005]272ITR295(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the respondent on 11th March, 1991 rejecting the application for waiver made by the petitioner under Section 273A(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) for asst. yrs. 1986--87 and 1987-88.2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that:On 27th May, 1986, the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted search at the residential premises of Shri Hemant S. Shah (son-in-law of the petitioner). Smt. Jayshri H. Shah (daughter of the petitioner) and Smt. Shantaben R. Chokshi (the petitioner). As the petitioner Smt. Shantaben R. Chokshi has since expired, the legal heirs have been brought on record with the permission of the Court and the deceased petitioner is now represented by petitioner Nos. 1A to 1C.3. It is an admitted position that from the premises of Hemant S. Shah Rs. 15,93,600 in Indian currency, US $ 9,530 and 100 cents of Canadian currenc...
Dr. N.P. Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1210]; (2004)3GLR2674
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates.The petitioner, a retired Government servant, claims interest on the amount of retiral benefits which, according to the petitioner, were paid belatedly.2. The petitioner is a qualified doctor. At the relevant time he was serving as Associate Professor, Regional Training Centre, Sachin, District Surat in Class-I service. On 1st April, 1996 he made application for voluntary retirement on expiry of three months' notice period i.e. 30th June, 1996. It is the claim of the petitioner that till 30th June, 1996 he did not receive any communication from the State Government. He, therefore, unilaterally handed over charge and relieved himself from service. The petitioner thus stood retired from service with effect from 1st July, 1996. The retiral dues, however, were not paid until 30th June, 1999. The petitioner has, therefore, presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has claimed that the petitioner be paid interest ...
Deversons Private Limited Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Guj)400; [2005]273ITR414(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. At the oral request of Mr SN Divetia, learned counsel for the petitioner, leave to add Chief Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Aayakar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad as respondent No.4.Notice of Rule to the newly added party returnable today. Mr Manish Bhatt, learned standing counsel waives service of Rule for the newly added party.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 31.3.1994 (Annexure 'M') passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I, Ahmedabad rejecting the petitioner's revision petition under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and rejecting the petitioner's claim to delete the interest of Rs.3,48,122/- levied under Section 234B of the Act for AY 1989-90. The petitioner has also challenged the legality of the order dated 21/28.1.1993 (Annexure 'I') of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in regretting i...
Deversons (P) Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Cbdt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN628(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.At the oral request of Mr. S.N. Divetia, learned counsel for the petitioner, leave to add Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Aayakar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad as respondent No. 4.Notice of rule to the newly added party returnable today. Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned standing counsel waives service of rule for the newly added party.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.2. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 31-3-1994 (Annexure 'M') passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-1, Ahmedabad rejecting the petitioners revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and rejecting the petitioners claim to delete the interest of Rs. 3,48,122 levied under section 234B of the Act for assessment year 1989-90. The petitioner has also challenged the legality of the order dated 21/28-1-1993 (Annexure 'I') of the Central Board of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›