Gujarat Court September 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.
Devayani Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(183)ELT139(Guj)
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. - Mr. Jitendra Malkan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government waives service of Rule for the respondents. At the joint request of Ms. Disha Nanavaty for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel, the application is taken up for hearing today.2. This is an application for review of our Order dated 25-8-2004 by which we had directed respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to grant the petitioner registration under the Central Excise Rules for conversion of the unit, from the status of 100% EOU to that of a Domestic Tariff Area Unit upon the petitioner complying with various conditions. As per condition No. (ii), the petitioner was to deposit, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, a sum of Rs. 48,01,567/- against the order-in-original dated 31-7-2003 being the amount of customs duty, subject to verification of any payment made by the petitioner earlier against the said amount. No modification is sought in respect of the said direction....
Nirajanbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat thro' Secretary
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1493
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are owners of the land, applied for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose as per the application dated 2.11.2002. On 20.1.2003, the District Development Officer, Vadodara addressed a letter to the petitioners that the application is rejected for administrative reasons. It is the case of the petitioners that the communication by the District Development Officer dated 20.1.2003 is not supported by any Resolution of the Executive Committee or any other Committee of the District Panchayat and the District Development Officer had no power to take the decision independently in absence of any Resolution of the Committee.2. It appears that thereafter the petitioners moved an application to the District Panchayat for reconsideration of the case for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose. The said application was submitted on 28.1.2003. It appears that thereafter the Executive Committee of the...
Century Enka Ltd. Vs. Rama Filament Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: I(2006)BC247; [2005]126CompCas182(Guj); [2005]58SCL315(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner namely, Century Enka Ltd. has filed this petition under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent Company. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the order placed by the respondent with the petitioner, the petitioner through its division, Rajeshri Polyfil had sold, supplied and delivered Polyester Filament Yarn ( POY/PFY) to the respondent for a total amount of Rs.1,50,23,161. The petitioner had also raised various invoices on the respondent for the said aggregate amount of Rs.1,50,23,161/- towards the goods sold, supplied and delivered by the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent accepted the said goods and the said invoices of the petitioner without raising any objection with respect to the quantity, quality or price thereof. The respondent has also utilised the said goods in the normal and usual course of its business of texturising and processing of yarn.2. It ...
Patel Dineshbhai Mohanbhai Vs. Decd. Naranbhai Ramdas Thro' Legal Heir ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj100; (2005)1GLR116
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since common point is involved in both these Civil Revision Applications, both are disposed of by this common judgement.2. So far as Civil Revision Application No. 1103/2002 is concerned, the same is filed by the original plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No. 194/1988 challenging the order dated 20th September, 2002, passed below Exh.59 by the learned 4th Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara, by which the learned Judge has rejected the withdrawal pursis filed by the applicants of this Civil Revision Application.3. So far as Civil Revision Application No. 1104/2002 is concerned, the same is filed by the original plaintiffs of aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 194/88, challenging the order of same date of the learned trial Judge passed below Exh.57, by which third party, i.e., opponents No. 2 to 5 herein were permitted to be joined as co-plaintiffs in the said suit. The learned trial Judge has passed that order under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid ord...
Uti Bank Ltd. Vs. Shree Rama-multitech Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas15(Guj); [2005]58SCL328(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Company Petition No. 60/03 is filed by UTI Bank Ltd., under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of Companies Act, 1956 for winding up the respondent-company.2. Similarly Company Petition No. 197/03 is filed by the Karnataka Bank Ltd. for winding up of the respondent-company.3. The case of the petitioner in the Company Petition No. 60/03 is that pursuant to the request made by the respondent-Company for financial assistance for short term capital requirements, the petitioner had, vide its letter dated 23rd July, 2001, conveyed its approval for sanction of short term loan of Rs. 15 crores. In view of the said sanction, the Company executed a loan agreement dated 23rd July, 2001, in favour of the petitioner interalia agreeing to repay the principal amount at the end of nine month from the date of disbursement and to pay to the petitioner interest on the principal amount of the loan outstanding from time to time at the rate of 13% p.a. with quarterly rests and to bear all d...
United Phosphorus Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT27(Guj)
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise and in fact the petitioner has availed of that remedy. In that view of the matter, we would not like to exercise our writ jurisdiction in this matter and accordingly this petition is dismissed.2. At this stage, a request is made by the learned counsel for petitioner that the appellate authority be directed to hear and decide his appeal at the earliest in view of the huge amount running into more than rupees one crore. We do not know how many cases are pending before the appellate authority, therefore, instead of issuing any such direction to the appellate authority, we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner-appellant approaches the appellate authority by way of proper application for expediting the appeal, then we are sure that considering the facts and circumstances of th...
Kapuram Bhuraji Vs. Patel Steel and Re-rolling Mills
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR334]; (2005)2GLR1029; (2005)IILLJ242Guj
ORDER ON SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.473 OF 1997Today, pursuant to the aforesaid order, this Court has restored the present petition and since it is listed with Misc. Civil Application for hearing, the same is taken up for hearing and being disposed of accordingly.Heard Mr. R.V. Desai, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner. No appearance is entered on behalf of the respondents after Ms. BINODA GAJJAR elevated in judiciary.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed below Exh.10 in Misc. Application No.43 / 1996 Annexure-F pg.38 dated 2nd November, 1996, wherein the exparte order made by the Payment of Wages Authority, has been set aside with cost of Rs.500/- and main Payment of Wages Application No.784 of 1994 was restored to the original file. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that because of pendency of this petition, payment of wages authority did not proceed with the matter and no further proceeding has been initiated though no stay has...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Medico Labs and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Guj)112; 2004(173)ELT117(Guj)
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order, after hearing learned standing counsel Mr. J.M. Malkan for the appellant-CCE, Ahmedabad.2. Order in original No. MP/63-65/DA/2000, dt. 27th March, 2000 was passed by the Dy. Commr. Central Excise, Division-IV, Ahmedabad, against M/s Medico Labs. Aggrieved by the same, M/s Medico Labs had filed Appeal No. 332 of 2003 before Commr.(A)-I, which was allowed by Mr. V.K. Jain, Commr.(A)-I, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, by his order dt. 12th June, 2003 and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after setting aside the impugned order passed in original by the authority on 27th Aug., 2000.3. M/s Medico Labs had filed refund claim of Rs. 85,812, which was sanctioned to them. On the basis of objection raised by the audit in post audit of refund claim, a show-cause notice dt. 20th March, 1992 was issued to M/s Medico Labs on the ground that the refund was erroneously granted in their favour as they have not produce...
Bharatsinh Pratpsinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR48
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. Present Criminal Misc. Application is filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the original accused Bharatsinh Pratapsinh Parmar who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhavnagar for committing offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment [RI] for life vide judgment and order dated 29th December, 2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1995. Original accused nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted for offences under section 324 read with section 114 of the IPC as well as section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, but they have been granted benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.2. The incident in question had taken place on 16th November, 1994 at about 7.30 p.m. in the city of Bhavnagar. It was alleged by the prosecution that the present appellant alongwith original accused assaulted the deceased and others with deadly weapons like axe, crowb...
Jay Bharat Steel Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT20(Guj); (2004)3GLR2668
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these seven writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of common order dated 12.02.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block No.2, New Delhi (for short 'the appellate Tribunal'). For deciding all these matters, we have preferred to narrate the facts of main Special Civil Application no.3315 of 2004 which are as under :2. The petitioner Jay Bharat Steel Company of Special Civil Application No. 3315 of 2004 is a partnership firm engaged in activity of ship breaking. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs passed orders finalising the assessment of the disputed bills of entry and confirmed the differential duties. It is averred in para 3 of the petition that in a number of identical cases of ship breakers, the orders of assessment were challenged by ship breakers in appeal nos. 1575 to 2203 of 1999 before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad - respondent no.3 who, by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »