Gujarat Court February 2005 Judgments
Essar Steel Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas123(Guj); (2006)5CompLJ83(Guj); [2005]59SCL457(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, namely, Essar Steel Limited has filed this petition under Section 78 and 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956 before this Court seeking following prayers :-(a) That the reduction of the share capital of the Petitioner by cancellation of part of equity share capital being 20,47,33,113 (Twenty Crore Forty Seven Lacs Thirty Three Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen) equity shares of the face value of Rs.10/- and fresh issuance of preference shares in lieu thereof as resolved by the special resolution of the Petitioner at its 27th Annual General Meeting held on July 19, 2003 be confirmed and passed by this Hon'ble Court;(b) That the proposed Minutes as set out in Para 14 hereinabove, be approved;(c) That the procedure laid down under Section 102(2) and (3) of the Act, as regards the creditors be dispensed with, on such terms as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit;(d) That the Petitioner be dispensed with the use of the words 'and reduced';2. The capital of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhabhai A. Vanand Vs. Amul Dairy Anand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1008]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bavishi for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. In this petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the award made by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference No. 903 of 1992 (Old No. 166 of 1991) dated 9.1.1998 in so far as it relates to denial of back wages for the intervening period. Under the said award, the labour court has granted reinstatement of the workman without back wages for the intervening period.2. Pursuant to the award of reinstatement made by the labour court, respondent issued order of reinstatement dated 6th May, 1998 which was accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner resumed by letter dated 16th May, 1998 and, thereafter, filed this petition on 18th September, 1998 challenging the denial of back wages by the labour court while granting reinstatement.3. Learned advocate Mr. Bavishi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed more than 13 to 14 years of...
Tag this Judgment!Rupali Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(187)ELT178(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges the notice of demand to defaulter dated 5th January 2005 (Annexure 'A') issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division V, Surat-1, calling upon the petitioner to pay total amount of Rs. 1,38,69,343/-.2. Heard Mr. N.K. Pahwa, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Malkan on behalf of respondents. For the reasons that follow and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. The Respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned notice (Annexure 'A') stating that an amount of Rs. 1,38,69,848/- is to be recovered from the petitioner as the petitioner has taken over the liabilities of M/s. Rangoli Prints, Plot No. 2414, Road No. 24, GIDC, Sachin, Surat. The impugned notice is issued in Form Appendix II being 'Notice of Demand of Defaulter'. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, a partnership firm has not taken over the liabilities of M/s. Rangol...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rama Multitech Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas209(Guj); [2005]62SCL539(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant Company has taken out this Judge's Summons seeking following directions from this Court :-(a) THAT separate meetings be held of the Secured Creditors with First Charge or Class 'A' Creditors, Secured Creditors with Second Charge or Class 'B' Creditors, Other Creditors or Class 'C' Creditors and shareholders of the Applicant Company for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving with or without modification the proposed scheme of Arrangement and/or Compromise;(b) AND THAT directions may be given as to the method of convening, holding and conducting the said meetings and as to the notices and advertisement to be issued;(c) AND THAT a Chairman may be appointed for the said meetings, who will report the result thereof to this Hon'ble Court.2. This application was placed for hearing on 04.02.2005. Mr. Tushar P. Hemani, learned advocate appearing for the applicant Company has prayed for time to work out the modality of place and time of convening th...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Banuben Sikandarbhai Shaikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC559; 2006ACJ1270; (2005)2GLR1696
Jayant Patel, J.1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both sides matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The short facts of the case are that two claim petitions were filed under Motor Vehicles Act for compensation in respect of death of one Sikandar Shaikh, one claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No.144/98 by respondent Nos 1,2 & 3 in the Dist. Court at Gandhinagar claiming compensation of Rs.4 Lacs. In the said application the respondent No.1 claimed the compensation as the wife of the deceased and respondent Nos 2 & 3 claimed compensation as son and daughter of the deceased. In the said claim petition on 20.9.98, a compromise was arrived at in Lok Adalat whereby it was agreed to pay Rs.1,70,000/- to the claimants therein who are respondent Nos 1,2 & 3 herein. There is no dispute on the point that on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties in Lok Adalat in the proceedings of Claim Petition No.144/98 an award was passed. Thereafter, i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Prod ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)385; [2006]282ITR24(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I, Ahmedabad :-Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.5,47,69,105/- being the alleged additional price towards purchase of Milk, sanctioned on the last day of the accounting year i.e. 31.3.1984 ?2. The Assessment Year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is the Financial Year ended on 31st March, 1984. The assessee, a Co-operative Society, filed its return of income on 31st August, 1984 returning NIL income. However, after making various additions and disallowances the Assessing Officer framed an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 18th March, 1987 on a total income of Rs.8,01,67,335/-. Out of the various additions / disallowances the only issue whic...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatbhai Manibhai Dholakia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1709
Jayant Patel, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practising lawyer at Bhuj. He was registered as Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that since 14.8.1988 he has been practising as Notary. It appears that on 12.10.2000, the period of registration was expiring. However, it is the case of the petitioner that on 26.1.2001, because of the devastating earth-quake the office and the residence of the petitioner was badly damaged and was classified as 'G-5' category i.e. the building which cannot be used for residential purpose even after renovation. It is also the case of the petitioner that the entire office records including the certificate of the Notary were under debris and the petitioner had also to go out of the country in capacity as the District Governor, Rotary International. On 7.8.2002, the petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwatilal G. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Guj)8; [2005]277ITR277(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following four questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the assessee.'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the status of the assessee was not 'Resident but not ordinarily Resident' and, therefore, the fees of Rs.14,860/- which has accrued outside India is not exempt under the proviso to section 5(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in refusing deduction u/s 80-R of the I.T. Act, 1961 and whether its interpretation of section 80-R of the I.T. Act, 1961 and whether its interpretation of section 80-R is correct in law?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs.30,000/- being compensation paid by non-resident Mehta Group for loss ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shilpa Jigishbhai @ Jignesh Vyas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC343; IV(2005)ACC112; IV(2005)ACC485; 2005ACJ1645; (2005)2GLR1784
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. These appeals have arisen out of the award passed by the MACT (Aux) Baroda in MACP No. 386 of 1990 dated April 30, 1996.2. Briefly stated, Jigishbhai alias Jignesh Patel (deceased) was going from Baroda to Dabhoi driving his Fiat Car No. GA 8799 on correct side of the road. When his car reached between village Thuvavi and Fertikui, truck bearing Registration No. GTP 7094 driven by opponent No. 1 came from opposite direction at full speed It went on the wrong side of the road and dashed with the front right portion of the Fiat Car. Car was completely smashed and deceased died on the spot due to injuries sustained by him. The allegation is that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving by opponent no. 1 owner and driver of the truck, insured with M/s. United India Insurance Co. ltd. (opponent No. 2). Further, it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 17,000.00 p.m. He was young person of 23 years, quite healthy. His grand father (70) was alive at t...
Tag this Judgment!Lallubhai Bapujibhai Parmar Vs. Panchmahal District Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR704]; (2005)3GLR1907; (2006)ILLJ366Guj
M.S. Shah, J. 1. At the oral request of the learned counsel for the appellants, leave to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. Admit. Mr Hemant Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service of notice of admission of the appeals. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today. 3. This group of eight appeals challenges the common judgment dated 19.8.2004 of the learned Single Judge by which the separate petitions filed by the Panchmahals District Panchayat challenging the recovery certificates issued by the Labour Court, Panchmahals at Godhra are ordered to be set aside on the ground that the eight recovery applications filed by the appellants under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) were not maintainable and also on the ground that the recovery applications were premature and, therefore, the Labour Court had committed a seri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »