Gujarat Court December 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.
Premnath Mohanlal Rajput (Adv.) Thro Brother-prince Mohanlal Vs. State ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1183
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. Premnath Mohanlal Rajput (Advocate), through his brother Prince Mohanlal Mehra, petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 15/9/2005 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and prayed that detenu may release from the jail. Petition was filed on 25/10/2005. On 28/10/2005, this Court (Coram: A.S. Dave, J) has issued rule which is returnable after four weeks. Hence, matter has been placed for hearing to this Court.2. Mr. B.C. Rupera, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order of detention. It was stated that detenu was in jail on 30/8/2005 for some other offence committed by him. The authority has supplied grounds of detention to the petitioner in this behalf. The learned advocate has also invited my attention to the grounds given by the authority on 15/9/2005. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that petitioner has com...
Cit Vs. Dhall Enterprises and Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: [2006]150TAXMAN499(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.At the time of admission on 16-4-2003, the following question had been formulated by this Court :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the third proviso to section 32(l) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would not be applicable in respect of the plant and machinery which cost below Rs. 5,000 since such assets are covered specifically under the first proviso, and that the entire cost is to be allowed by way of deduction ?'2. In a similar matter involving identical issue being Tax Appeal No. 166 of 2005, on 3/4-10-2005 this Court passed the following order :' 1. The following question has been proposed by the appellant-revenue :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the third proviso to section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be applicable in respect of the plant and machinery which cost below Rs. 5,000 since such assets are covered specifically under the first proviso, and that the entire ...
Kuber Rolling Mill Private Limited and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2350
ORDERP.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. In both these applications, Ms. Manisha Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Utpal Panchal, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of the parties, both the matters are taken up for hearing today.2. Instead of approaching Civil Court for getting appropriate money decree, the complainant has rushed before the Criminal Court by filing these complaints. The tendency of filing criminal cases in the matter of a civil nature is increasing day-by-day, perhaps with a view to see that the complainant may get quick result of his case. 3. So far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 11145 of 2004 is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has filed the said complaint against the applicants, i.e., a limited company and its directors under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506(1) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Fir...
Vadilal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(197)ELT160(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition primarily challenges the action of the Registry of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT/Tribunal), whereby the papers of Rectification of Mistake Application filed by the petitioner-company were returned under cover of letter dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure J to the petition). It is further prayed that CESTAT be directed to hear and decide the ROM Application on merits. Though, the petitioner has made various other prayers seeking quashing and setting aside of the order made by CESTAT in appeal as well as the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority, it is not necessary to enter into the controversy on merits in light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt.2. Heard Mr. Paresh. M. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Rule. Mr. Malkan waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. The matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today in light of the fact that the controvers...
Ramkubhai Valkubhai Dhakhda Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR613
J.R. Vora, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the applicant and learned APP Ms. D.S. Pandit for the respondent No. 1 ' State of Gujarat. Notice is served to respondent No. 2.2. The present respondent No. 2, original complainant ' Raghjibhai Hemabhai Patel, being a Chief Officer of Rajula Municipality on 20.10.2003 had been directed by present applicant, original accused, who was President of Rajula Municipality, at 5.30 p.m. to sign a cheque as Chief Officer of Municipality. When complainant, respondent No. 2 herein brought to the notice of the accused that being a Chief Officer, he would sign the second cheque only when first cheque was presented before the Bank. On saying so by the complainant, the accused, present applicant got excited and assaulted complainant with a knife and caused hurt as well as administered threat to kill. The complainant, Chief Officer presented a complaint before the Police Station at Rajula and obtained medical treatment. The complaint came...
Anandiben Chandulal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR885
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Present appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Chandulal Keshavlal Shah ' original petitioner, whose petition was partly dismissed by Miss. R.M. Doshit, J. by her order dated 4.10.2004, which is challenged in this appeal. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Jhaveri firstly submitted that the learned Single Judge committed grave error in not granting prayer for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the original petitioner in foreign country. In support of his submission, Shri Jhaveri has pointed out the copy of the Resolution dated 20.2.1979 passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent (Annexure-C Collectively), wherein it is stated that he would be entitled for free medical facilities for self and family. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 ' GMDC could not have altered his service conditions by subsequent Circular dated 28.1.1980 (Annexure-F). He also submitted that the averments made by him in Para.11 of his writ petition that Dr. S.C. Munshi of Jashlo...
State of Gujarat Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]72SCL423(Guj)
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner-State of Gujarat, has challenged the order dated 21st November, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (A.A.I.F.R.) in Appeal No. 367 of 2001 presented by Gujarat Sidhee Cement Limited (hereinafter referred to as G.S.C.L.), the respondent No. 2-herein whereby the A.A.I.F.R. allowed the said appeal, quashed and set aside the order dated 29th November, 2001 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.), and directed the State Bank of India (S.B.I.) to continue as Monitoring Agency (Operating Agency) and to submit half-yearly progress reports to the B.I.F.R..2. The short facts as they emerge from the record can be summarized as under:2.1 The G.S.C.L. was established and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. G.S.C.L. has its registered office at Sidheegram, Junagadh District of Gujarat. Due to market recession G.S.C.L. suffered losses, an...
Sudhaben Kanubhai Prajapati Vs. District Panchayat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1088]; (2006)2GLR1146
Jayant Patel, J.1. As both the petitions are inter-connected and in both the petitions more or less common facts are involved, common questions arise for consideration and, therefore, they are being considered by this common judgement.2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12020 of 2004 is a teacher who has been inflicted punishment in the departmental proceedings of withholding of one increment for the misconduct of having illicit relations with another lady, who is widow, and also the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12022 of 2004 namely; Sudhaben K Prajapati. The allegation was not only of having illicit relation, but the charges proved are that the petitioner had lawfully married wife and without there being divorce with the previous wife, he has kept relation with another lady and two children are born out of the said relation.3. So far as the petitioner of SCA No. 12022 of 2004 is concerned, she was working as Vidhya Sahayak and the charges in the disciplin...
Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. Vs. Talukapanchayat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR987
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., appellant, Original Plaintiff, (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as SCPC for short) against the judgement and decree dated 27.9.2001 passed by 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad, in Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 1997. By the impugned judgement, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:2.1 The appellant, plaintiff, is a Statutory Corporation incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 1.2.1994. Initially the plaintiff was known as Oil and Natural Gas Commission, a statutory Corporation under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act. Even after 1.2.1994 the Union of India has a controlling shareholding in the plaintiff Corporation and it remains to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the C...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Standard Radiators (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR207(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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of AO confirming the disallowance of Rs. 66,577, being payment of bonus of earlier years ?2. In light of the facts available on record, it has become necessary to reframe the question and the refrained question is :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 66,577, being the payment of bonus was an allowable deduction ?3. The assessment year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 31st Dec., 1980. For understanding the controversy, it is necessary to take note of the facts as recorded in the assessment order, because in the impugned order dt. 27th Sept., 1993, the Tribunal has failed to record complete and correct f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›