Gujarat Court February 2005 Judgments
Gajaji Gopalji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1142
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners - 610 in number, formally appointed by the Gujarat State under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Bombay Home Guards Rules, 1953, but really forming a special wing, known as Border Wing Home Guards (for short 'BWHG') constituted under and governed by the Government of India's Scheme of 29.6.1979 for all border States for border duties, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying before this Court that this Court may direct the respondent authorities namely State of Gujarat, through the Commandant General, Home Guards Headquarters, Ahmedabad respondent No. 1, the Commandant No. 2 Battalion, Border Wing Home Guards, Bhuj - Kachchh respondent No. 2, Union of India - respondent No. 3, to evolve fair, just and reasonable conditions of service for the petitioners herein and to further grant service benefits like fixation of pay, leave, over time, medical allowance, travelling allowance, retiral benefits like providen...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporaton Limited Vs. Dhayabhai Ahshabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR977
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Preface:These four groups of appeals arising from four common judgments in total 37 land reference cases having common features and the same appellant and having been argued together, are disposed by this common judgment. Since certain shocking facts were pointed out and withdrawal of even 50% of the amounts awarded by the Reference Court, which were deposited under the orders made in the civil applications for stay, was objected on behalf of the appellant and since the parties had jointly requested to take up these appeals for final hearing, the Records & Proceedings of the trial Court were called for and the learned counsel were heard at length for final disposal of the appeals.2. First Appeals No. 2478 to 2493 of 2004: The common judgment in 16 land reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) is under challenge in this group of appeals preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 54 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Guj)495; [2005]276ITR535(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda.'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the interest charged under Section 217 of the Income Tax Act?'2. The Assessment Year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year ended on 31st March 1982. The Income Tax Officer, while framing assessment order dated 28th March 1985, issued direction to 'charge interest under Section 217(1)(a)'. Accordingly, interest to the tune of Rs. 39,57,885/- was charged under the said provision.3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), for the reasons stated in his order of 3rd February 1986, confirmed the levy of interest. According to Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee company was required to file statement of a...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminagar Co-op. Housing Society Thro. Organisor Vs. Mamlatdar and Al ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2083
M.R. Shah, J. 1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 14.6.2004 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ('GRT') in Revision Application No. TEN.BA 756/92 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 18.9.1989 in Ganot Case No. 119/89 and also the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals, Mehsana, dated 1.7.1992 in Appeal No. 401/91.2. One Shri Ambalal Harjivandas was owner of lands bearing Survey Nos. 252 and 212 of Kalol. The said land were new tenure and restricted lands as the original landowner namely Ambalal Harjivandas was a tenant (Ganotia). It is the case of the petitioner that the heirs of Ambalal Harjivandas applied to the District Collector, Mehsana, for conversion of the land into old tenure land and for Non-Agricultural permission and an order came to be passed by the District Collector for convertin...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. AshwIn Vrajlal Rajgor, Newphew of Lat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC282; IV(2005)ACC448; 2005ACJ1618
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This Appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 37 of 1999 dated 30-09-2000. Claimants filed petition for claiming compensation for the death of Kantilal Dayaram Rajgor on 20-01-1999 while going from Anjar to Sura in truck No. GH-12-U-6684 as driver. He was driving the truck on the left side of the road with moderate and controllable speed. Around 1 km. away from Bachau on Bachau- Samakhiyali road, opponent-1 in the employment of opponent-2 came from opposite direction driving truck No. GJ-12-V-6442 rashly, recklessly and negligently at excessive speed without observing rules of the road and collided with truck No. GJ-12-U-6684. Deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Accordingly, the death of the deceased is the direct result of sheer negligence of the opponent-1 (driver) and opponent-2 owning the truck No. GH-12-U-6442. This vehicle was insured with opponen...
Tag this Judgment!Adani Exports Limited Vs. Marketing Service Incorporated and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj257; I(2006)BC545; 2006(1)CTLJ195(NULL)
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. Appeal from order No. 130 of 2002 is at the instance of the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001, which has been filed against the order dated 23rd January 2002 passed by the City Civil Court below Application Exhibit 5 (Notice of Motion) in the Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001.2. Appeal from Order No.281 of 2002 has been filed against the order dated 23rd January 2002 passed by the City Civil Court below Application Exhibit 5 (Notice of Motion) in Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001. This appeal is at the instance of original defendant no.1 in the aforesaid suit.3. Since in both the appeals the challenge is against the very same order, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgement.4. M/s Adani Exports Limited (hereinafter referred to as AEL or plaintiff) had filed Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against Marketing Services Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as MSI or defendant no.1), Abu Dhabi Commercia...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Patel Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ682Guj
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The only question, which is raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is as to whether a person leaving the employment upon voluntary resignation could claim pension and other retiral benefits or not.2. Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent-Bank as Officer Grade-II on 17/11/1975 and he has served for more than 17 years. He was a Branch Manager and despite his resignation on 18/5/1993, the regulation for pension scheme for the respondent-staff of the Bank came to be introduced which is called as 'Union Bank of India Employees' (Pension) Regulation, 1993'. The Bank employees who have retired on or after 1/1/1986 but before 1st November, 1993 were asked to fill-up the option forms. The petitioner had also filled-up option form and sent to the Respondent-Bank. However, the Respondent-Bank by writing a letter dated 29/10/1994 informed the petitioner that he is not entitled to pension in terms of the Pension Regulation, 1993 as he has...
Tag this Judgment!Jenaji Manaji Thakore Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2437
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal to challenge judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 161 of 1996 dated 3/1/1997. By the said judgment the appellant has been convicted for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/=, in default to undergo RI for six months. He has also been convicted for offence under section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/=, in default to undergo further RI for three months. The appellant was tried alongwith three original accused who have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge. It appears that no acquittal appeal is filed to challenge their acquittal.2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, can be stated as under :-2.1. The incident in question took place at about 8.00 p.m. on 6/7/1995 at...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kohinoor Flour Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Guj)167
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT, Baroda :'(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the additions made by the ITO in respect of the capital gains arising out of acquisition of land when the physical possession of the 'land was given by the Baroda Municipal Corporation on 8th Feb., 1967 ?'2. In the light of the fact that the aforesaid question contained typographical error, the question has been reframed as under to bring out the correct controversy :'(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting addition made by the ITO in respect of capital gains arising out of acquisition of land when physical possession of the land was given to the Baroda Municipal Corporation on 8th Feb., 1967?'3. The assessment year is 1967-68 and the relevant accounting period is year ended on 31st March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Cast Alloy Foundries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Guj)194; [2005]275ITR199(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question of law 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, Rajkot :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that rectification order dtd.31.3.86 Under Section 154 of the Act by the ITO in respect of the assessment order Dtd.25.3.82 was barred by time on the ground that un-amended provisions of Section 154(7) were applicable ?'2. The Assessment Year is 1979-80 and the relevant accounting period is 31st December, 1978. The assessment order was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 25th March, 1982. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 154 of the Act for the purposes of reworking the depreciation allowance to which the assessee was entitled and the said order was made on 31st March, 1986.3. The assessee challenged the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »