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.
Pushpaben Champaklal Shah (Lokhandwala) and anr. Vs. Rikhavdev Tirthra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj66
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr. K.R. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Renuka Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Handa for the respondents.2. Rule. The formal service of Rule is waived by Ms. Renuka Gaur on behalf of the respondents. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent. 3. The present petition is moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners-orig.plaintiffs making grievance against the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge (J.D.), Ankleshwar, whereby the petitioners-orig. plaintiffs are directed to step into the witness-box as witnesses of the defendants and that too before the respondents-orig.defendants' examination to disprove the case of the petitioners and to prove the contentions raised by the respondents-defendants in the written statement.4. The complication cropped up in the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1992 when the plaintiffs decided to lead evidence through their power of attorney holder. Undi...
Truemake Ginning Machinery Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT392(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. P.M. Dave, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.M. Chhaya, the learned additional standing counsel on behalf of respondent, appearing on advance copy. RULE. For the reasons that follow hereinafter, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today itself with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners prefered appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT) accompanied by applications seeking stay of demand. On 6-9-2004, CESTAT passed an order on the stay applications directing the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs and report compliance on or before 10-12-2004. Admittedly, the petitioners complied with the said order and hence, the order of making further pre-deposit and recovery of further amounts was stayed in terms of the order dated 6-9-2004.3. In light of the provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Ac...
Gautam Harilal Gotecha Vs. Dcit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)139; [2006]281ITR283(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. K.H. Kazi, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.ADMIT2. The appellant has proposed as many as seven questions, however, the following proposed question is the question which would take care of the controversy between the parties and arises for determination:Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the decision of the ITAT was not perverse in as much as firstly it does not consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant and secondly the impugned order is not at all reasoned and speaking order, thirdly the impugned order is incoherent and vague and fourthly it does not deal with all the grounds raised challenging various additions on the merits 3. In so far as assessee's challenge to issuance of authorisation of search and legality of search Under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is concerned, it is not necessary to enter into any discussion as...
Bank of Baroda Vs. O.L. of Astron Drugs and Indus. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2005
Reported in: [2006]68SCL428(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides finally.2. The present application is preferred for declaration of the sale as invalid and consequently the applicant has also prayed for the relief directing the Respondent No. 5 to surrender and hand over the possession of the property bearing Survey No. 1447/4 admeasuring 6164 sq. Mtrs. Situated at Rajpur Kadi, District Mehsana.3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the application, O.L., Mr.Jani, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5, who is the purchaser of the property and Mr.Pathak, learned Counsel for the workmen, it appears that as per the applicant Bank, the total area of the property admeasuring 17604 sq., mtrs., including the construction, plant and machinery thereon of the Company in liquidation was mortgaged with the applicant Bank. As per the applicant, the charge is also registered under the Companies Act for the amount of Rs. 2.55 crore. It appears that the applicant Bank initiated the ...
Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. Uoi Through Secretary
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2005
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN3(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.Heard Mr. K.H. Kazi, the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Notice returnable on 15-11-2005.2. For the purposes of ad interim relief, the learned counsel have invited the attention of the Court to the speeches made by the Finance Minister of Union of India at various stages. They have also submitted that, as such, there would be three categories in which the assessees would broadly fall; the first category where they are covered by the provisions of the Fringe Benefit Tax, the second category where the case may be governed partially, and the third category wherein the circular seeks to levy Fringe Benefit Tax despite the fact that the employer is not making any payment to any employee or not incurring any expenditure for any employee so as to attract Fringe Benefit Tax. It was, therefore, submitted that so far as the category Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the assessees must be protected, and in the alternative, insofar as the third category is concerned, the...
N.B. Surti Family Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)145; [2007]288ITR523(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SC has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the assessee :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the assessee's request of admitting in evidence the trust deed dated 4th April 1977 which was not filed at any earlier stage and was for the first time filed before the Tribunal on 16/8/1993?2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79 to 1982-83 and the relevant accounting periods are the financial years respectively. The assessee, a trust, filed returns of income on 31/3/1987, seeking benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, as popularly described. In the return of income, the status was shown by the assessee as an Association of Persons (specific trust). The assessing officer called upon the assessee to submit details on the following points :[1] When was the trust created?[2] What were its activ...
Darusing Durgasing Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ720
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner original accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the summons issued in Criminal Case No. 435/1999 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad.2. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned advocate with Mr. D.S. Vasavda, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, namely, Prakash Kanubhai Shah, who is appearing as party in person has filed criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 435/1999 for the offences punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C. He has submitted that the respondent No. 2 filed Company Application No. 364/1998 and in the said application various allegations were levelled against the Official Liquidator as well as the office bearers of the Textile Labour Association (T.L.A.). In response to the notice issued by the Court in the said application, the present petitioner has filed affidavit in reply. In para 2 of the said affidavit-i...
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and 2 ors. Vs. Gidc
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR178
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. By way of the present petition the petitioner challenges the action of the respondent in refusing to return the transfer fee amounting to Rs. 8,73,600/- levied and recovered from the petitioner No. 1 company.2. The short facts of the case can be sumamrised as under:2.1 The petitioners had approached the respondent for a plot at Panoli Industrial Estate for the purpose of setting up a project for bulk drugs. Accordingly the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 25, admeasuring 33600 square meters at Panoli Industrial Estate. An allotment letter dated 28.1.1993 was also issued.2.2 Petitioner No. 1 is a holding company of petitioner No. 3 Sankalp Laboratories Ltd. Petitioner No. 1 holds about 61% of the paid up equity capital of the petitioner No. 3. All the Directors of petitioner No. 1 company are also Directors of the petitioner No. 3 Sankalp Laboratories Ltd. and accordingly petitioner No. 1 controls the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 3 Sankalp Laboratories Ltd...
Mahavir Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR624
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges order dated 20/03/2002 made by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.2. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, exported various goods, including readymade garments in 37 different consignments to Germany between November, 1992 to February, 1994. Thereupon, the claim of duty draw back was made, approved by respondent No. 3 and total draw back to the tune of Rs. 7,34,681/- was allowed and paid by different cheques.3. It appears that because the German buyer went bankrupt the petitioner could not realize the sale proceeds of the 37 exports made. Therefore, on 26/02/1999 respondent No. 3 issued show cause notice proposing to recover the draw back amount which was allowed and paid to the petitioner by relying upon provisions of Rule 16A of Customs and Central Excise Duties Draw Back Rules, 1995 (Drawback Rules). According to respondent No. 3 as the sale proceeds of the exports had not been realised within the time permi...
Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs. Saubhagyachand Shambulal Vora
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj100; (2006)1GLR51
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard ld. Sr.Counsel Mr. PM Thakkar for ld. Counsel Mr. Ravindra Shah for the petitioner. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2005 Annex.A to the petition whereby the ld. 5th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhuj-Kutch rejected the application exh.35 in Special Civil Suit No. 24/2004 and to allow application exh.35 directing the trial court to take the written statement of the petitioner-defendant company on record.2(i) The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and and defendant in a Special Civil Suit No. 24/2004. As the defendant company prayed vide application exh.35 that it may be permitted to file written statement in the suit as it could not file written statement in time granted. The day on which the application exh.35 was tendered, written statement was also kep...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »