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.
Birla Vxl Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(183)ELT350(Guj)
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard Shri Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Malkan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Suit no. 35 of 1979 before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Jamnagar for the refund of its amount paid by it as excise duties on blended yarn which was decreed for Rs. 22,66,759.44 ps. along with the cost of Rs. 25,561/- in favour of the petitioner. Appeal filed by the Excise Department against this order before this court was allowed and the petitioner was directed to refund the amount which was paid to it under the interim orders of this court in appeal to the department @ 20% interest, against which the appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the petitioner which was also later on dismissed by holding that the department was entitled to recover the refund amount.3. On 20-10-1997, Superintendent, Central Excise wrote a letter to the petitioner-company calling upon it to deposit Rs. 23,02,...
Rameshbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. Shree Bansidhar Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas806(Guj); (2005)6CompLJ277(Guj); [2005]58SCL396(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that it is just and equitable that the respondent Company be wound up.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the substratum of the respondent Company is totally lost and its losses far outweighed its capital and its share capital was completely wiped out. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondent Company was not carrying on any business for which it was formed and registered. There are no prospects of its carrying on any business in near future or even distant future. The respondent Company cannot carry on any business except at a loss. The carrying on of the warehousing business is only a stop gap business even as per the say of the respondent Company. The respondent Company is in insolvent circumstances and cannot pay its debts as and when they become due and payable. The respondent Company does not have any free assets worth the name which can be ...
L.M. Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1235
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. In these petitions a common question of law is involved, and therefore, they are dealt with by this common judgment.1.1 In Spl. C.A. No. 5089 of 1990 the petitioner has prayed for a direction to restrain the respondents from reverting the petitioner before the juniors to the petitioner are reverted.1.2 In Spl. C.A. No. 3241 of 1995 the petitioners prayed for a direction to consider the case of the petitioner therein for promotion to the Class II post in the cadre of City Survey Superintendent on the basis of pre-29-8-1984 rules and to consider their case for promotion to the post of Shirestedar/Head Clerk from the date on which unqualified persons were promoted and further giving the benefit of deemed date of promotion, pay fixation, arrears of salary, and further promotion, etc.1.3 The petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 7000 and 7688 of 1999 are the employees (hereinafter referred to as the second group of petitioners) who are affected by the issuance of ...
Patl Taraben Somabhai and ors. Vs. Vidya Sahayaks Samiti
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1062
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In these petitions, since similar questions of law and facts arise, the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement.2. In these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents in not giving them appointments to the post of Vidhya Sahayak on the basis of the merits secured by them as calculated by the authorities as per the prevailing Rules and Regulations.3. In Special Civil Application No. 7477 of 1999, the sole petitioner has stated that she is holding the qualification of SSC with PTC. For the purpose of recruitment of the primary school teachers, the respondent had issued an advertisement on 10.4.1991. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied. According to the petitioner, the selection process was carried out in the year 1991-92 and though the select list was never published, the respondents made appointments of several candidates, some of whom, according to the petitioner, h...
Sakhee Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT26(Guj)
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common order dated 26-3-2004 (Annexure-A) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal') in stay application Nos. E/S/2112 and 2113/03 filed in Appeal Nos. E/3067 & 3068/03.2. At the outset, it may be stated that Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in both these petitions stated at the Bar that the petitioners have fully deposited the amount of duty before the learned appellate Tribunal, but due to its poor financial condition, the petitioner was not able to deposit penalty amount. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned common order dated 26-3-2004 passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing both these stay applications be quashed and set aside and the learned Tribunal be directed to entertain the appeals of the petitioner and decide them on merits. It is a matter of discretion of the Tribu...
Ajit D. Padiwal Vs. State of Gujarat and 2
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR743
ORDER DATED 27.4.1998.33.1 It may be noted that initially the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the pendency of the petition by its order dated 27.4.1998 directed the High Court to ensure that the record of 10 cases be kept in custody of the Registrar of the High Court and thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its final judgment dated 17.11.1999 allowed the appeal. In view of the same, now there is no purpose of keeping the record in the custody of the Registrar. Therefore, I direct that the record of all 10 cases which are pending may be sent back to the trial Court to decide the same in accordance with law after considering various reports.33.2 It is no doubt true that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed final order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any order but it is understood that once the Supreme Court has finally decided the matter, the order directing to keep the record in the custody of the Registrar of this Court also terminates. In view of the same, the direction to s...
Van Oord Acz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Guajrat Adani Port Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj284; 2005(2)ARBLR58(Gujarat); (2005)1GLR446
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Learned Designate of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 6th July, 2004 in petition under Arbitration Act No.30 of 2003.2. An interesting question of law has been raised in the present petition to the effect that whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can go into the details of an agreement between the parties and should decide the existence or otherwise of a clause 'international commercial arbitration' in the agreement especially when [i] the existence of such clause in the agreement is disputed by the respondent; and [ii] an Arbitrator has already been appointed, by this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or instead of concluding by the High Court as to the existence or otherwise of a clause 'international commercial arbitrati...
Kashish Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(183)ELT134(Guj)
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Shri Dave for the petitioner. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order passed by the Settlement Commission at Annexure 'F' on 7-4-2003 in Settlement Application No. 50 of 2000.2. Having heard the learned Counsel Shri Dave for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the impugned Order Annexure 'F' passed by the Settlement Commission, it appears to us that the Settlement Commission, on the facts of this case, came to the conclusion that the cum duty price concept would not be applicable in this case because of the non availability of figure of realization on sale of goods. Accordingly, the learned Settlement Commission held that the duty finally demandable in this case was Rs. 84,68,535/- and accordingly it settled the case on the following conditions under Section 32F(7) of the amended Central Excise Act, 1944 amended by Finance Act of 1998.'1. CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY :The case is settled at Rs. 84,6...
Leenaben W/O. Sohanlal Hemandas Soni Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj40; (2005)1GLR247
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent no.1 Company of disconnection of electricity supply and have prayed for a declaration that the respondent no.1 company has no power and authority to disconnect the power supply in absence of express provisions of Act or Rules framed thereunder.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.1 has committed breach of section 126 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 2003') as the Assessing Officer has to make inspection of the premises of the petitioner, has to issue notice of hearing and thereafter only, the assessment under section 126 of the Act of 2003 can be made by the respondent no.1 company. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the alleged theft of electricity, the respondent no. 1 company has no power of disconn...
Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Patel Vs. Director of Agricultural Marketng and R ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2718
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. In Special Civil Application No. 11249 of 2004, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Election Officer made on 3.9.2004 at Annexure:I to the petition, refusing to take the objections against nomination papers into consideration on the ground that they were not submitted in the prescribed time and that they were given only after the nomination papers were declared to be valid when no objections were received. Admittedly, the election process for election of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Vadodara has started long ago and voting is to take place on 16th September, 2004.1.1 In Special Civil Applications Nos. 11399 of 2004 and 11400 of 2004, the petitioners have challenged the rejection of their nomination papers. The Election Officer made a common order on 31.8.2004 on the grounds mentioned in detail in that order rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners. Voting is scheduled to take place on 13.9.2004 in both the above petitions for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »