Gujarat Court October 2005 Judgments
Guajrat Ambuja Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.B. Gadhe
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR269
Akil Kureshi, J.1. This group of petitions involve challenge to an award dated 31-12-2004 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh. One set of the petitions are filed by the employer challenging the said award by which the Labour Court was pleased to partially allow the reference of the concerned workmen. The workmen were directed to be reinstated in service with continuity, however, without back-wages. The concerned workmen are also aggrieved by the said award in so far as the same provides for no back-wages and only reinstatement. They have therefore, filed counter petitions which have also been clubbed together, have been heard together along with the petitions filed by the employer. Since common questions of law and facts arise in the petitions and counter petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Short facts leading to the present group of petitions can be noted at this stage. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Company is involved in providing public utility ...
Tag this Judgment!Popatlal M. Bhanshali Vs. Kishanlal Shivlal Modhiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1199
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioner - original plaintiff - appellant landlord is before this Court being aggrieved of a judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1986, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Zalod dated 18.08.1989, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession was dismissed. The learned Judge was pleased to order that plaintiff to recover @ Rs. 21 per month the rent with effect from 01.06.1983, totaling to Rs. 672/-. It was further ordered that if the defendant had deposited any amount in the Court, the same should be adjusted.2. The plaintiff - landlord being aggrieved of the same, approached the Court of 2nd Extra Assistant, Panchamahals at Godhra by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1989, which too was dismissed by judgment and order dated 31st July 1993 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 3. Mr. Asim J. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Courts below have erred in holding ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nuthern Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)649; [2006]284ITR396(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SB has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in relying upon Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment with effect from 1-4-1989 thereby cancelling the order of C.I.T. Under Section 2632. The assessment year is 1985-86. The assessee's accounting period is 1-7-1983 to 30-6-1984 and the assessee was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 4-1-1988.3. On 31-12-1984, the assessee company amalgamated with M/s Nestler Boilers Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the accounts of the assessee company were made up for a period of six months from 1-7-1984 to 31-12-1984 showing net profit of Rs. 2,86,074/-. The assessee company accordingly filed the return of income for assessment year 1986-87. Assessment came to be framed ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. R. Engineer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR58(Gujarat); (2006)2GLR1101
R.S. Garg, J.1. The present is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against judgement and decree dated 10.2.1989 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 190 of 1988 (Exh. 22) by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, rejecting the objections filed by the present appellant against the award made and ultimately published on 24.12.1987.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present matter are that the respondent contractor was awarded some earth work and lining for canal off taking from LBMC channel 0 to 10,000 metres as per agreement No. B2/2 of 1981-82. During the execution of the work various disputes arose which required settlement through arbitration. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 19,10,704/- while the tender cost was Rs. 20,09,127/-. The work was to be completed within 24 months from the issuance of the work order. However, the work could not be completed within the stipulate...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra N. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)18; [2006]280ITR462(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of a sum of Rs. 3,45,000 as business loss, etc. ?2. The assessment year is 1986-87 and the relevant accounting period is S.Y. 2041. The assessee entered into a contract for importing dates from one M/s Popular Trading Establishment of Dubai. For this purpose, a letter of credit with Union Bank of India, Porbandar, had been opened. The Dubai party presented false documents and collected money without loading and dispatching the corresponding quantity of dates. The assessee, therefore, initiated efforts to recover money from the Dubai party. Through a common acquaintance, one Shri B.V. Shah, the Dubai party could be traced and Shri B.V. Shah forwarded two post-dated cheques which were n...
Tag this Judgment!Dwijendra Shirishbhai Manek Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1413
Bankim N. Mehta, J.1. The appellant Dwijendra Shirishbhai Manek-original accused No. 2 has challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2001 on 6-8-2002 convicting this appellant for the offences punishable under Section 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 489A and 489B of Indian Penal Code, and directing him to undergo imprisonment of two years for the offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 and 489A and 489B of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each of the offences and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment of one year for each of the offences. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant-original accused No. 2 cheated the complainant by pretending himself as 'Ramakant Joshi' inducing the complaint to deliver in all 211 pieces of various models of Jonty Quartz Watches and gave a stolen d...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Babubhai Trivedi and 3 ors. Vs. K.V. Dabhi Food Inspector and 4 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2039
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all these petitions and since the arguments are also commonly canvassed by Mr. K.M. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 5, all these petitions are disposed of by this common order and judgment.2. Cri. Misc. Application No. 5741 of 2004 is filed by the petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal Case No. 5791 of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar.3. Cri. Misc. Application No. 5742 of 2004 is filed by the petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Criminal Case No. 1460 of 2002 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja. 4. Cri. Misc. Application No. 5743 of 2004 is filed by the petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal Case No. 16 of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad.5. Cri. Misc. Application No. 5744 of 2004 is filed by the petitioners-original accused No...
Tag this Judgment!United Phosphorous Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj23; (2006)1GLR123
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged the action of respondents in adjusting the amounts of the bills of the petitioners for the electricity sold by it to the respondent Gujarat Electricity Board without the consent of the petitioner No. 1 and also prayed for consequential reliefs.2. The short facts of the case are as under:2.1 The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing diverse types of chemicals and for that purpose it has a manufacturing plant and office at Bharuch. The petitioner company had entered into an agreement in December 1995 with the respondent Board for supplying electricity power. The contracted demand was thereafter extended to 25000 KVA and the said agreement stipulated that the period of supply under the Agreement shall be minimum period of two years. This agreement was between a licencee and a consumer as defined under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2.2 In view of the power crisis ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. Menubhai Jivanji Patel and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj37
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard ld. Counsel Mr. Indravadan Parmar for the petitioner. There is no resistance from the other side.2. By filing present Civil Revision Application and invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed below application Exh.33 submitted by the original defendant No. 1 dated 21.09.2004 whereby the ld. Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad dismissed Special Civil Suit No. 124/1997. The said suit was filed for recovery of Rs.6,72,331=00 against loan granted by the Bank against the original debtor and two guarantors.3. The grievance expressed by the defendant No. 1 before the lower Court in the application exh.33 was that the plaintiff had failed in serving the summons to him as contemplated under the scheme of Rule 5(1) of Order 9 of CPC. Undisputedly, the Court has privilege to dismiss the suit for default if the plaintiff fails in paying the process fees for service of summons. However, here ...
Tag this Judgment!Devarsons Private Ltd. Vs. U.P. Singh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Guj)48; [2006]284ITR36(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. S.N. Divetia and Mr. T.U. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent respectively. Rule. Mr. Bhatt waives service of rule. The petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today, with consent of the learned counsel as the disputes lies in a very narrow compass.2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company. For assessment year 1989-90, the petitioner made a claim that export cash assistance amounting to Rs. 7,68,651/- was exempt being a capital receipt. This claim was made in the return of income filed on 29th December 1989. It appears that, during the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the petitioner addressed a letter dated 22nd January 1991 addressed to the assessing officer informing that, by Finance Act, 1990, export cash assistance had become taxable because of amendment with retrospective effect from 1st April 1967. Accordingly, the assessing officer brough...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »