Gujarat Court March 2005 Judgments
In Re: Arcoy Overseas P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]68SCL255(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. These are the petitions filed by two petitioner companies for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation of Arcoy Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (the transferor company) with Arcoy Industrial Cements Pvt. Ltd. (the transferee company) under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Both the petitioner companies are private limited companies being managed by the same group of management. The transferor company is a trading company engaged in the exports of anti-corrosive materials and chemicals manufactured by the transferee company which is the manufacturing unit for above referred materials. The respective petitions give details about the commercial activities and the financial status of both the companies. Both the companies are profit making companies. The amalgamation is proposed for the synergic advantages. The petitions give details of the advantages that would flow by virtue of the amalgamation of these companies.3. The meetings of the shareholders of both the...
Tag this Judgment!Parth Harsh Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(193)ELT397(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company has challenged order dated 27th September, 2004 (Annexure-E) as well as order dated 3rd February, 2005 (Annexure-J) made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (The Tribunal).2. It is the case of the petitioner that by Order-in-Original dated 30th April, 2001/8th May, 2001 (Annexure-A), it was called upon to make payment of sum of Rs. 13,00,927/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner challenged the same before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 5th October, 2004 (Annexure-D) dismissed the appeal since the petitioner had failed to deposit amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was directed to be deposited vide order dated 19th May, 2003. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, disposed of the stay application as well as the appeal vide impugned order dated 27th November, 2004 directing the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Chetanbhai Babubhai Gohil Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR182]
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd.7/12/1999 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No. 1 denying to make Industrial Reference on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman. The petitioner raised a industrial; dispute over illegal termination of his services with the respondent NO. 2 Bank. The Conciliation Officer conciliated the dispute and submitted failure of the Conciliation Report to the respondent No. 1 - Union of India for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the respondent No. 1 has gone into the merits of the dispute and has decided and adjudicated the dispute holding that the projected dispute is not covered under the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 defining 'workman'. He has further argued that the Government has no authority to go into the merits of the matter and adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!R.D. Turi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1221]
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd.16/3/1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 denying to make Industrial Reference on the ground that the dispute has been raised after a lapse of more than 10 years without any justification for the long delay and hence frivolous and stale.2. As per the say of the petitioner, the petitioner was working as Extra Departmental Agent in the office of the respondent No. 3 since last 10 years. In the year 1985, the petitioner was chargesheeted for minor offence such as teared stationary, broken seals at Postal Bags etc. However, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet for a major penalty and removed from service after predetermined and prejudicial inquiry on 25/11/1988, without serving order upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a departmental appeal, wherein the Superintendent of Police - respondent NO. 3 rejected the appeal vid...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishbhai B. Ravoot Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1394
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Shri P.R. Abichandani, the learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Shri Dhaval C. Dave, the learned advocate waives service of rule for respondent No. 5.2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter was heard finally and the matter is CAV for prouncement of judgment.3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a short but an interesting question of law has arisen to the effect that 'At the time of consideration of No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch as envisaged under Section 56 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 [ hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ] and for consideration of strength of two-third, whether a vote of the Sarpanch is required to be counted or not ?'4. Though against the impugned decision of the Taluka Development Officer dated 5.1.2005, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, Valsad, however in view ...
Tag this Judgment!New Jagat Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Guj)110; [2006]282ITR399(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The assessee is a Private Limited Company which is in liquidation and is being represented by the Official Liquidator.2. The following three questions have been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' 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 holding that powers u/s 263 could be exercised by the C.I.T. in respect of an order of the I.T.O. which was to the following effect :'The assessee company untraceable proceedings dropped.'(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the plea of the assessee to the effect that powers u/s 263 could not have been exercised by the C.I.T. in respect of the order in question on the ground that the said order had not been served on the assessee?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Kantaben Babulal Borad Vs. Gsrtc
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1386
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Total ignorance of law is exhibited by the learned Assistant Judge, Rajkot in passing the order dated 30.09.2002 below exh.51 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1997, which is impugned in this petition.2. As the original appellant, one Babulal Nathalal, who preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1997, died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal heirs, the present petitioners herein, submitted an application before the learned Judge requesting the Court to allow them to be brought on record under Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge allowed the said application and accordingly, the present petitioners were permitted to be brought on the record of the said appeal. However, it seems that the title of the appeal memo was not corrected accordingly, showing the names of the present petitioners who were brought on record by virtue of the earlier order passed by the appellate Judge. The petitioner thereafter gave an application at exh.51 requesti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of I ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Guj)105; [2006]284ITR593(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh with Mrs. Swati Soparkar on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. M.M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent.2. Rule.Mrs. Bhatt appears and waives services of Rule on behalf of the respondent. Taking into consideration the admitted facts which have come on record, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.3. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2001-2002 on 30th October,2001 declaring total loss of Rs.2,70,85,105/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) accepting the loss returned by the petitioner. On 12th May, 2004 the respondent issued impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act. On 31st May, 2004 a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure, as declared in the original return, was filed by the petitioner under protest. After writing to the respondent a couple of times a copy of the reason...
Tag this Judgment!indubhai T. Vasa (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Guj)15; [2006]282ITR120(Guj)
D.A. Mehta 1. Heard Mr.J.P.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner.2. RULE. Mr.K.M.Parikh, learned Standing Counsel appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. In light of the fact that the controversy lies in a very narrow compass and stands concluded by a decision of this Court, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for respective parties.3. This petition challenges the order made by the respondent under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 3rd January, 2005. The petitioner, a H.U.F., has filed this petition through its Karta, who was a director of M/s.Sirs Engineering Private Limited (Company) upto 25th February, 1996. According to the respondent, a total sum of Rs.1,31,10,454/-, which comprised of tax plus interest plus penalty, was due and recoverable from the Company and the said demand pertains to Assessment Years 1996-1997 to 2001-2002.The respondent issued notice on 22nd M...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AshwIn Vanaspati Industrial (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Guj)117; [2006]283ITR439(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following question 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 :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts, in allowing relief of Rs. 20,78,000 as revenue expenditure though the claim was disputed by the assessee ?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the accounting period is the previous year commencing on 1st July, 1980, and ending on 31st Dec., 1981. The assessee, in the return of income filed on 10th Jan., 1983, claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 20,78,000 being the liability towards purchase loss payable to Army Purchase Organisation. According to the assessee, it had entered into a contract to supply 4,600 MTs of Vanaspati (Hydrogenated oil) to Army Purchase Organisation as per purchase order dt. 3rd Oct., 1980. As the market price of the goods went up in comparison to the price at which the assessee had agreed to supply the goods, the assessee chose not to supply 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »