Gujarat Court January 2005 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.
ivee Injectaa Ltd. and anr. Vs. Junagadh Vibhagiya Nagrik Sahakari Ban ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas528(Guj); (2005)2GLR962; [2007]74SCL147(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 3.11.2004 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notices issued by the respondent-bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act').2. The respondent-bank issued notices dated 10.3.2003 to the two appellants herein-sister companies-under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act for recovery of Rs.16,55,886/= (in LPA No.2 of 2005) and for recovery of Rs.94,88,693/= (in LPA No.3 of 2005). In the first case, the bank had filed Lavad Suit No.202 of 1992 and in the second case, the bank had filed Lavad Suit Nos.203 and 204 of 1992. In all the cases, the appellants herein (the defendants in the suits) submitted consent pursis dated 5.11.1992 on the basis of which the Board of Nominees passed decrees dated 26....
Mahendrabhai Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Ilaben Mahendrabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC309
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr. Yatin Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.M.Dagli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on merits.2. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has taken me through the relevant averments made in the impugned order dated 24th May, 2004, passed by the Jt. District Judge (FTC No. 4), Bharuch, in Misc. Application No. 119 of 2004, praying for condonation of delay caused in preferring an appeal against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch. The petitioner-husband, on the date of filing of the main petition under Hindu Marriage Act, was aged 62 years and the respondent-wife was aged 59 years. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch, while granting the application for interim alimony preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 200/- towards costs. The petitioner intended to challenge the said order dated 16th ...
Nirman Textile Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Guj)423; [2006]284ITR325(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Leave to amend.2. This appeal arises from the order of the Tribunal dated August 29, 2003, in I.T.A. No. 2750/Ahd of 1996 for the assessment year 1991-92 filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal.3. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate for the appellant, and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue.Admit.4. The following substantial question of law arises for determination:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal can be said to have been made in accordance with law and is not perverse when the decision reverses the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without giving any reasons ?5. Notice was issued on December 6, 2004, in the light of the ratio of the decisions of this court reported in-(i) Rajesh Babubhai Datnania v. CIT : [2001]251ITR541(Guj) ; (ii) Mercury Metals P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT : [2002]257ITR297(Guj) and (iii) Rameshchandra M. Luthra v. Asst. CIT : [2002]257ITR460(Guj)...
Seju Pravinkumar Arajanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1074
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is a victim of an arbitrary action of a Committee which has not only ruined his career in service but has also ignored the fact that for further studies the petitioner has mortgaged his property in order to pay up his tution fees. On account of the said arbitrariness, the survival of the petitioner is at stake. In this background, the matter was heard during vacation with the consent of the parties as a special case.2. The petitioner herein has preferred this petition in order to quash and set aside the orders passed by the respondent authorities dated 10/08/2004 and 12/08/2004 cancelling the admission of the petitioner in B.Ed. Course at Annexure-G Coll. to the petition.3. The facts of the case are that on 01/04/2004 respondent No. 2 University had published an Advertisement for admissions to B.Ed. Course for the Academic Year commencing from June 2004. On 23/04/2004 the petitioner applied for the same as he was possessing the necess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›