Gujarat Court December 2005 Judgments
Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Vs. Bhaven Constructio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj74; 2006(3)ARBLR230(Gujarat)
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) and the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Sole Arbitrator and the order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator dated 20-10-2001 in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner submitted under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by holding that he has got the jurisdiction to decide and resolve the disputes between the parties and his appointment as Sole Arbitrator is held as legal and valid. 2. It appears from the record that the petitioner ?' Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited entered into a contract with the respondent No. 1 ?' contractor to supply the bricks as per the specifications and in numbers for the construction of the canal work. It appears from the record that the tender was accept...
Tag this Judgment!Hitesh K. Shah Financial Services Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-2005
Reported in: [2006]71SCL469(Guj)
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In this group of petitions, the respective petitioners, registered as stock brokers with SEBI being members of Regional Stock Exchanges and also registered as sub brokers with SEBI of subsidiaries of their parent Regional exchanges, who are registered as sub brokers with SEBI as members of Bombay Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSE') and National Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the 'NSE') have challenged the legality and validity of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) (Amendment) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations 2003'); circular being No. SEBI/MIRSD/DSP-1/CIR-31/2004 dated 26-8-2004 and the circular dated 12-5-2005 making the same applicable to the members of the recognized Stock Exchanges operating through the subsidiaries of such recognized Stock Exchanges. By the Regulation 200...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC257(Guj)
R.M. Doshit, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). In the present petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated October 11, 2003 of attachment made under Section 48A of the Act and the notices for provisional assessment for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 issued under Section 41B of the Act.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of cement. The petitioner has its plant in the State of Rajasthan and branch offices all over India. The petitioner has a branch office in the State of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and storage godowns (known as dumps) located at several places in the State of Gujarat. It is the claim of the petitioner that petitioner brings cement in the State of Gujarat by branch transfer and stores the same at various dumps in the State of Gujarat. The petitioner sells the cement to its buyers in the State of Gujarat at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Purshootamdas H. Shah and 11 ors. Vs. Kapadwanj Nagarpalika and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR344]; (2006)1GLR724
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.1. The petitioners have challenged the action of the Respondent No. 1 Kapadwanj Nagarpalika in not extending the benefit of Resolution dated dated 30/7/1991 to all the retired employees of Nagarpalika and confining it only to the employees in service or to be retired after 1/8/1991, as discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional.2. The petitioners were employees of Respondent No. 1 Nagarpalika holding different positions as mentioned in Annexure-A at page-16 of the petition. The date of joining and date of retirement of petitioners have been mentioned at Annexure-A at page-16, and their respective date of retirement have also been mentioned in the affidavit-in-rely by Nagarpalika on page-31. The petitioner No. 12 had retired on 16/12/1987. The petitioner No. 3 and 11 died during pendency of this petition, hence their legal heirs have been brought on record, and permitted to prosecute this petition.3. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2007(218)ELT188(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition primarily challenges order dated 24th August, 2004 (Annexure-I) made by the Deputy Director General (M), Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi.2. The petitioner, a society, registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has come into existence pursuant to a tripartite agreement between the Government of Gujarat, Gujarat Cancer Society, and the petitioner. The petitioner is running the hospital for treating patients suffering from cancer and related diseases, and in the process the petitioner also runs a research center. The petitioner is an institute recognized by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as a Regional Cancer Center. 3. The petitioner is managed by a governing body constituted of eight members, wherein four members are nominated by the State Government as provided by the Constitution of the petitioner-Society.4. By virtue of Notification No. 63/88-Customs dated 1st March, 1988 issued by Ministry of Fin...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Corporation and 3 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2008(223)ELT26(Guj); 2009[15]STR378
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to amend page No. 1 of the petition. Permission granted.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes following prayers :[a] this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the summons issued by the respondent No. 3 under the purported exercise of powers Under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944;[b]this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the action initiated by the respondent No. 3 is bad in law and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside;[c] that pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from directing the petitioners to appear in person in the purported exercise of powers Under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944;[d] that pending admission, hearing and f...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. O.L. of G.S.T.C. Ltd. and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]69SCL151(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since all these Company Applications and O.L. Reports are inter related and they center round the properties of M/s. New Jahangir Vakil Mills (in liquidation), they are heard and being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Before the Court proceeds to deal with each of these applications and reports, it is necessary to have a close look at the factual background of the entire issue raised before the Court for its consideration.3. The brief resume of the facts as stated before the Court is that New Jahangir Vakil Mills (for short NJVM) (in liquidation) is one of the units of Gujarat State Textile Corporation Limited (for short GSTC) (in liquidation) since 06.02.1997. GSTC was incorporated on 30.11.1968 and it was fully owned Company by the State Government and it was incorporated mainly with an object of carrying on its business of Textile Mills and managing any such business or undertaking of any person or Company entrusted to it, either by the Central Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Ushakant N. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Guj)501; [2006]282ITR553(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The applicant-assessee has proposed the following eight questions :1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 132(4A) was applicable in the course of assessment proceedings and presumptions created by it would place burden on the assessee to establish to the contrary the rebuttable presumptions raised by the above section and in further ignoring the decision of the Calcutta High Court in that behalf ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in throwing on the assessee a negative burden to establish that the handwritings in the notebook and the slips were not his or any of his persons, relying on the rebuttable presumptions provided by Section 132(4A) which was not applicable ?3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in ignoring a very material fact mentioned and accepted by the CIT(A) that the AO had taken the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Agrawal Textiles Vs. O.L. of Shree Vrundavan Processing Mills Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: [2006]72SCL291(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant, namely, Agrawal Textiles has taken out this Judges' Summons seeking direction to disburse the amount realised by him on sale of the assets of the Company in liquidation amongst the Unsecured Creditors.2. One Mr. Bharat R. Agrawal, the proprietor of the applicant firm has filed the affidavit in support of the Judges' Summons. Mrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an unsecured creditor of the Company in liquidation to the tune of Rs. 1,90,300/- and has lodged its claim before the Official Liquidator on or around October, 2000. She has further submitted that the applicant has supplied goods to the company in liquidation to the tune of Rs. 1,90,300/- somewhere in the year 1984 ?' 85. The Company has been taken into liquidation and O.L. took the possession of the assets of the Company (In Liquidation). The assets which include machineries, book debts, stock in trade, land and building etc. were sol...
Tag this Judgment!Amul Potteries Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR585]; (2006)IIILLJ615Guj
A.J. Dave, J.1. This group of appeals arises out of a judgment and order rendered by E.S.I. Court, Rajkot, on April 8, 2004, in ESI Applications No. 1 to 48 of 1992. First Appeals No. 1726 to 1754 of 2004 are preferred by the factories-original applicants before the ESI Court, whereas First Appeals No. 2261 to 2295 of 2004, 2365, 2372 to 2376, 2745 and 2748 of 2004 are preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation-original opponent before the E.S.I. Court.2. For the sake of convenience, the original applicants are addressed to as 'the applicants' and the original opponent is addressed to as 'the opponent' in this judgment.3. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of roofing tiles at Morbi. They claim to be seasonal factories. By virtue of Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1989, some amendments were brought into the Employees' State Insurance Act. By notification dated October 20, 1989, by the Government of India, the Central Government appointed October 20, 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »