Gujarat Court October 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.
Colourtex and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT200(Guj); (2006)2GLR1106; 2008[9]STR440
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.M. Chhaya, the learned additional standing counsel appearing on advance copy on behalf of the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3. The dispute between the parties lies in a very narrow compass and hence, the petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal today.2. This petition has been brought before this Court at a stage where, in fact, there is no order made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT).3. It appears that when the appeals preferred by the petitioners were heard by a Division Bench of CESTAT on 12/8/2005, the learned Members constituting the Bench could not agree and recorded dissenting opinions. Therefore, in light of provision of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), the difference of opinion was referred to the President of CESTAT who assigned the matter to a Third Member to hear on the point on which there was difference of opinion between th...
A.M. Overseas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(194)ELT267(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the action of respondent No. 4 bank of not permitting the operation of bank account No. 051102 000 014580 i.e. Current Account of the petitioner with respondent No. 4 bank.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, by communication dated 5/8/2005 (Annexure SA), the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that the cheques issued by the petitioner could not be cleared because of the direction issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat under the provisions of Section 110(3) read with Section 121 of the Customs Act (the Act). The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court and pointed out that, in light of the decision rendered in case of Raghuram Grah Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax, : 2005(186)ELT50(All) , the bank account cannot be frozen by respondent authorities during pendency of investigation.3. Upon issuance of notice, respondents have put in appearance. Mr....
Thaker Rajeshkumar @ Khanna Vasudev Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1973
Bankim N. Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana on 21-4-2001 in Sessions Case No. 243 of 2000 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.2. The name of the victim of rape is not indicated in this judgment in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in : 2004CriLJ1 .3. In brief, the prosecution case was that on 30th July, 2000, Ms. Vasantiben wife of Gaurishanker Ishwarlal residing at Village Sunshi lodged a complaint stating inter alia that her daughter i.e. the victim aged about 12 years was studying in Std. 7th and the appellant came to her house on bicycle at about 2-30 p.m. a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Union Electric Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2005
Reported in: [2006]281ITR266(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', 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 is right in law in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on the concealed income of Rs. 26,853 to which the assessee had agreed for disallowance ?2. The assessment year is 1981-82. The assessee filed return of income showing total income of Rs. 2,31,020. During course of assessment, the AO observed that under the head 'consumable stores', an amount of Rs. 34,892 had been debited. He called for details and on going through the same, found that an amount of Rs. 26,853 related to purchase of aluminium wires from M/s Zodiac Electrical (P) Ltd. It is an admitted fact that the assessee was doing job work of paper covering on the wire supplied by its sister-concern, M/s Johnson Electric Co. and others, and was receiving labour charges towards...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sidral Food (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)135; [2006]282ITR563(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', 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 is entitled to grant of investment allowance in respect of plant and machinery installed and put to use in the year under consideration for the manufacture of various products like bread, biscuits and cakes 2. The assessment year is 1988-89 and the relevant accounting period is year ended on 31st May, 1987. The assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 1,30,037. However, the AO disallowed the same holding that running a bakery and preparation of food articles does not constitute manufacture or production. He also recorded that the statutory reserve had not been created by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who vide order dt. 20th Nov., 1989 confirmed the assessment order ...
Omkarnath S. Parashar Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1056
K.A. Puj, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP and Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Since the complaint is of 1991, the matter is heard finally.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 31.3.2003 at Annexure-A and the order dated 22.4.2004 at Annexure-B passed by the learned JMFC, Veraval and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, respectively and also praying for deletion of the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 379 of the I.P.C. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No. 1301/1991 pending before the learned JMFC Veraval. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Officer from the Gujarat Electricity Board (G.E.B.) respondent No. 2 herein had visited the factory premises of the petitioner and alleged the theft of the ener...
Rameshchandra Bansal Through Constituted Attorney Virendra Bansal Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CompLJ93(Guj); (2005)3GLR2734; [2006]67SCL404(Guj)
D.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsels for the Respondents waive service of Rule on behalf of their Respondents.2. In all the above petitions, the common question of law is involved and hence all the matters are taken up for their final hearing. The learned Counsels for both the sides consider Special Civil Application No. 13946 of 2004 as the lead matter for the purpose of referring annexures and replies filed by the respondents.3. In the above aforesaid petitions, a part of the Scheme floated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SSEBI, for short) is under challenge. The SEBI floated a Scheme viz. SSEBI (Interest Liability Regularisation) Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as SSEBI Scheme, for short) dated 15th July, 2004 for the waiver of 80% of the total interest liability of the share-brokers. The said Scheme was incorporated in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) and Clause (k) of Sub-section 2 of Section 11 read with Section 12 of...
Essar Steel Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: 2004(176)ELT64(Guj); (2006)1GLR436
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. While dealing with the diverse contentions raised by the parties in the petition, the consequential issues which arose for consideration of this Court are (i) whether a government monopolistic company established with the object of accelerating the growth of national economy should concentrate on profit motive alone in the course of discharge of its functions, and (ii) whether such a company has the authority to deviate from the directions issued by the Central Government in policy matters and act arbitrarily and unreasonably for the sole purpose of making super profit.2. The petitioner Essar Steel Limited has prayed for quashing and setting aside notice dated 1.5. 2001 whereby the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have sought disconnection of supply of gas for non-payment of transportation charges; to restrain the respondents, their officers, servants from acting in any manner contrary to the Government pricing orders dated 31.12.1991, 18.9.1997 and 30.9.1997; to direct the re...
Maheshkumar Virjibhai Trivedi and 20 ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj35; (2006)2GLR1066
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Shri Dipen Desai and Shri M.R. Mengade, learned AGPs on behalf of the respondents in this group of petitions.2. As the common questions of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.3. In this group of petitions, the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order and / or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.1.2001 and subsequent action taken on the basis of the said order. It is also further prayed that to hold that the respondents have no authority to take possession of the lands allotted to the petitioners bearing Survey No. 377 paiki of village Manjavas, Taluka-Rapar, District-Kachchh.4. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are allotted lands admeasuring 10 Acres each by the Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur from the land bearing Survey No. 377 paiki pursuant to the orders passed by the Deputy C...
Hemansu Narandas Patel Vs. Maniben Dhanjibhai Gandhi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj69
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. DD Vyas with ld. Counsel Mr. Dhaval. D. Vyas for the petitioner. 2. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (original-defendant No. 4) has challenged the order passed by ld. Civil Judge (S.D.), Navsari dated 11.02.2005 below application exh.23 in Regular Execution Petition No. 7/2003 as well as the order passed by the appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 0/2005. The ld. Civil Judge, vide impugned order rejected the application exh.23 resisting the execution proceedings initiated by the original judgment creditor of Reg. Civil Suit No. 259 of 1988, a suit for house rent and possession and decree passed was challenged by way of an appeal and then in a Revision Application. The proceedings had seen the Court Room of the Apex Court at one stage.3. The ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Vyas has taken this Court through the scheme of Rule 3 of Order 32 of CPC. It is argued that when the trial Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »