Gujarat Court February 2005 Judgments
Twinkle Rameshkumar Dhameliya Vs. Superintendent
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj267
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule, Mr. M.A. Shaikh, Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent authorities. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The short facts of the case are that on 17.4.2000 the petitioner married to one Chandulal Kunvarjibhai Kanani and the said marriage registration is registered with the Sub-Registrar, Rajkot. It appears that the petitioner applied for passport on her name as married to Chandulal Kanani. The respondent passport authorities on the basis of said application has issued passport bearing No. B 3283015 on 10.1.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter there were some disputes between the petitioner and her husband and as both belong to Patel community in the presence of the relatives and leaders of the Patel Community it was decided to put an end to the marriage and therefore divorce deed has been executed on 28.1.2002 in the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rainbow Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Guj)180; [2005]277ITR507(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT, Baroda :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the interest levied under Section 215 of the Act when the additions made by the AO were confirmed by the Tribunal and the advance tax paid by the assessee was less than 75 per cent of the assessed tax ?'2. The assessment year is 1980-81 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year ended on 31st March, 1980. The assessee-company had filed an estimate of advance tax showing an income of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) and estimated the advance tax payable at Rs. 1,18,150 (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand one hundred fifty only). In the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act, the ITO computed the total income at Rs. 3,43,360 (Rupees three lakhs forty three thousand three hundred sixty on...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Labour Association Vs. O.L. of Vijaya Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas423(Guj); [2005]62SCL53(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant, Textile Labour Association has taken out this Judge's Summons praying for the following reliefs :-(A) To please direct the O.L. to take steps to evict the respondent from the premises of Vijaya Mills Ltd. as he has taken many illegal connections and he is also using the mills premises for unauthorised and illegal use;(B) To please direct the Sale Committee to dispose of the land immediately after evicting the respondent No.3;(C) Respondent No. 4 may be directed to inform this Hon'ble Court as to when and under whose order or application the meter as shown in photograph was put up on 05.02.2003;(D) To grant such other and further relief(s) as are deemed fit in the interest of justice;2. An affidavit is filed by one Mr. Ravikant Mohanlal Solanki, one of the office bearers of the applicant Union in support of the present Judges Summons. It is stated in the affidavit that by an order dated 07.09.1993, the Company, namely, Vijay Mills Limited was ordered to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Sj and Sp Family Trust Vs. Dy. C.i.T. (Asst.)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Guj)255; [2005]277ITR557(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant.2. ADMIT. The following substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd November 2003.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was open to the Tribunal to pass an order on the basis of written submissions filed by the Departmental Representative without assigning any independent reasons so as to reflect the application of mind by the Tribunal?'3. In light of the facts of the case, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposal.4. The Assessment Year is 1993-94 and the relevant account period is the year ended on 31st March 1993. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Assessing Officer disallowed the same for the reasons stated in the assessment order. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the claim of the assessee in the appeal filed by the assessee. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gac Shipping (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1289
Jayant Patel, J.1. As in all these petitions, the facts are, more or less, common and common questions are raised, they are being considered by this common judgment.2. Mr. Nanavaty waives service of rule in Special Civil Application No. 54594/04 when the matters are finally heard.3. The Special Civil Application No. 4461/04 is preferred challenging the letter, dated 1.4.04 as well as the letter, dated 4.2.04 issued by the respondent No. 3 calling upon the petitioner to make payment as stated in the said letters. The petitioner has also prayed for appropriate writ to the respondents not to take any action including for not issuing NCC to the vessels calling at the port of the respondents. The petitioner has also prayed for permanent injunction against the respondents not to recover the amount as demanded, i.e. Rs. 71,83,099/- and also against non-issuance of NCC to the vessels calling at the respondent's port.4. The Special Civil Application No. 4644/04 is preferred by the petitioner fo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Natwar Harchandji Thakor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2957; (2005)1GLR709
J.N. Bhatt, J.Prelude (Focal Point)Let us at the very outset, evidently record, remember, and recollect that ;'A civilisation is judged by the way it treats its criminals.'1. In this group of criminal appeals, specially assigned to the Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the central theme, the core issue and the main point, in focus, has been, as to whether the trial Court, on being satisfied or in presence of special and adequate reasons peculiar to the accused, to be mentioned in writing, in the judgment of the Court, in finding accused guilty, 'for a first offence' either by evidence or 'by raising the plea of guilty'; is competent to impose for such 'first offence';(i) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months and fine of less than Five Hundred Rupees for the offence punishable under the proviso to Sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the 'Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949'. (B. P. Act')?And(ii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less tha...
Tag this Judgment!The Peerless Genreal Finace and Investmet Co. Ltd. Vs. Essar Oil Limit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas353(Guj); [2005]59SCL734(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant, namely, The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited has taken out this Judge's Summons making following prayers :-[A] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that holding of meeting of the debenture holders holding more than 2000 debentures would not serve any fruitful purpose as more than one-fourth in value of debenture holders holding more than 2000 debentures are opposed to the Scheme of Arrangement / Compromise by the respondent, in the interest of justice and equity;[B] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the meeting held on 26.10.2004 for consideration of the Scheme of Arrangement / Compromise proposed by the respondent concludes that the Scheme is defeated / has failed as the same is opposed by more than one-fourth in value of debenture holders holding more than 2000 debentures, in the interest of justice;[C] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to vacate the order dated 04.04.2003 made by this Hon...
Tag this Judgment!Mansa Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commission ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1105]; (2005)2GLR1592; (2005)IIILLJ669Guj
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.1.2003 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant-bank's petition seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are not applicable to the appellant-bank, which is a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under :-2.1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat State, the respondent herein, issued notice dated 15.2.2000 (Annexure 'B') calling upon the appellant-bank to comply with the provisions of the Act with effect from 1.4.1997 on the ground that the appellant-bank is an establishment engaged in one of the industries specified in Schedule I to the Act. The establishments classified as banks other than Nationalized Banks are covered by the provisions of the Act by the Government of India notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Sandesh Limited Vs. Chandulal Jethalal Jaiswal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj219
Jayant Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. S.J. Shahfor the original petitioner, Mr. G.D. Bhatt for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Chandulal Jethalal Jaiswal, the respondent No. 1 in the main petition as well as applicant in Civil Application No. 133/05 who is appearing as party in person. Since the party in person was appearing I have heard him in detail. Main petition is for challenging the order, dated 26.4.93 passed by the Press Council of India.2. Mr. Shah, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner is desirous to withdraw the petition and therefore permission may be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Mr. Bhatt, Ld. Advocate for the respondent No. 2-Press Council of India has left the matter to the court. Mr. Bhatt submitted that he is supporting the order passed by the Press Council of India, however, for withdrawal of the petition, he leaves the matter to the court.3. The respondent No. 1, Mr. Jaiswal who has also preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 133/05, objected to the perm...
Tag this Judgment!Poly Fill Sacks Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(101)ECC653; 2005(183)ELT344(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. RULE. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. By consent of the respective parties, for the reasons that follow hereinafter, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing the order of attachment of goods dated 6th September 2004 and action of respondent No. 3 of invoking and encashing Bank Guarantee No. 24/4.A further consequential relief seeking restitution of the position as prevailing before the encashment is also sought. The petitioner had preferred an appeal in accordance with provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) accompanied by an application for stay of demand. After hearing the parties on 21st May, 1996 an order came to be made b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »