Gujarat Court March 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.
Chetankumar Shankarlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2005
Kshitij R. Vyas, J.1. The convict-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.7.1996 passed in Sessions Case No.337/95 by the learned Addl.City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, convicting him for offences punishable under section 302 of IPC and under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act awarding sentence to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rupees Five thousand. In default to undergo R.I. for one month for offence under section 302 of IPC and to pay fine of Rupees five hundred for the offence under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. In default, to undergo further R.I. for one month.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:The accused was tried for committing murder of deceased Jayesh Chudasma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The incident had taken place on 31.1.1995 at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. on the public road near the petrol pump in the area of Naroda in the City of Ahmedabad. The decea...
Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(102)ECC347; 2005(183)ELT417(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition is moved praying for following reliefs:'A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing that the appeals and stay petitions filed by the petitioners against the order in original dated 30-1-2004 and received by the respondent No. 2 on 5-4-2004 be transferred/transmitted for adjudication and hearing to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Surat.B. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from initiating recovery against the petitioners of the amount of duty, interest and penalty confirmed by order in original dated 30-1-2004 at Annexure A hereto till the transferred from the office of the respondent No. 2 to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Surat and the stay applications are heard and decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat.C. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Y...
P.H. Transport thr' Its Partner Vs. State of Guajrat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj326
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard Shri Hriday Buch for the petitioner and Shri Siraj Gori, learned A.G.P., appearing on the advance copy of this petition being served upon him for the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and Shri K.M. Patel, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 & 3.2. The petitioner - P.H. Transport has filed this petition through its Partner Shri Nilesh Hargovanbhai Vithlani of Junagadh, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that the impugned order dated 9.3.2005 (Annexure:A), passed by the Manager (LTC) respondent No. 3 of Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - respondent No. 2, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner or its representatives to participate in the negotiation scheduled to be held on 15.3.2005 at 10.30 am. i.e. today.3. It may be stated that yesterday at 11.00 am Shri Buch, learned Counsel for the petitioner mentioned before us to circulate this matter at 2.15 pm. yesterday i.e. on 14.3.2005 on...
Mehsana Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)571; [2005]275ITR601(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the assessee :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to carry forward of the business loss determined on a belated return of income ?'2. The Assessment Year is 1985-1986 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 31st March, 1985. Return of income was due on 31st July, 1985 but was filed on 23rd December, 1985. The Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment on 15th March, 1988, computed business loss at Rs.2,35,461/- but did not permit carry forward of the same by observing '... As the return is not filed within the statutory period, the loss of Rs.2,35,461/- is not allowed to be carried forward. ...'3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who reversed the...
Gobarbhai Ranchhodbhai Sardhara Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2478
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 waives service of rule, Mr. Barot, learned Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. Patel, learned Counsel appears for the surviving Trustees of the Trust, who are joined as respondents No. 5 to 15, but as they are impleaded as Trustees, the remaining Trustees are represented through Mr. Patel, who waives service of notice of rule. Mr. Chhaya, learned Counsel for respondents No. 16 and 17 waives service of rule and Respondent No. 18 is served by direct service, however, he has chosen not to appear.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard today.3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are claiming rights as the purchaser of the land bearing Survey No. 99 and 133 of Village Abrama, Taluka Valsad. It appears that the property was held by the Shri Takhateshwar Mahadev Temple which is a public trust duly register...
Amarshibhai Mangabhai Dangar Vs. Assistant General Manager
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR325]
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. Heard Mr. Dharmendu Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.M. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Samir J. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. In this matter, Rule has been issued by this Court (Coram : H.K. Rathod, J.) vide order dtd.1/4/2003, making it returnable on 20/7/2003.3. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are as under;-According to the petitioner, he was employed as a full time Peon-Cum-Messenger with the respondent No. 1 since October, 1995. The services of the petitioner came to be orally terminated from 18/8/2001. The petitioner has served notice on the respondent No. 1 on 16/4/2002 and thereafter, started proceedings by way of filing complaint before the concerned Asstt. Commissioner of Labour. The conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Central) Adipur and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Asstt. Commissioner submitted failure report under...
Baroda Municipal Corporation Vs. Purushottambhai T. Solanki
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1733
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. The present Special Civil Application No. 7137 of 1996 has been filed by the petitioner -Baroda Municipal Corporation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, Baroda in Reference (LCV) No. 126 of 1992 dtd.15/5/1996 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and with 20% back wages within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award and also directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- to the respondent as cost of the Reference. The Labour Court further directed the petitioner Corporation to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the back wages from 1/6/1996, if the backwages is not paid by petitioner as aforesaid.2. This Court (Coram : J.N. Bhatt, J.) while passing order dtd.2/11/1996, issued Notice for admission making it returnable on 4th December, 1996 and also granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 11(C)...
Vipul Fashions (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Guj)299; [2006]284ITR332(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. T.P. Hemani, the learned advocate for the appellant. Admit.2. The following common substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of Tribunal dt. 10th Sept., 2003 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the order of CIT(A) without assigning any reasons and without controverting findings recorded in the order of the CIT(A) 3. In light of the view that the Court proposes to. take, the appeals are taken up for final hearing and disposal.4. The assessment year is 1995-96 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 31st March, 1995. The assessee filed return of income showing income at Rs. 30,02,420 on 30th Nov., 1995. The AO, for the reasons stated in his order dt. 30th March, 1998, disallowed a sum of Rs. 20,67,776 treating the same as excessive rebate and discount allowed to various parties, including one sister-concern of the appellant, namely, M/s Vipul Exports.5....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Carbon Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Guj)614; [2005]277ITR349(Guj)
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, Ahmedabad :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the additions made by the ITO amounting to Rs. 16,121 on account of presentation articles as also an amount of Rs. 35,226 as sales expenses which according to the ITO were hit by the provisions of Section 37(2A) ?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is previous year ended on 30th June, 1983. The assessee, a public limited company filed return on 31st July, 1984, disclosing total income of Rs. 20,55,630. The assessment was framed on 27th Feb., 1987, on total income of Rs. 41,16,769. During the course of assessment, the AO disallowed the sums of Rs. 16,121 on account of presentation articles and Rs. 35,226 shown as sales expenses. It appears that the latter sum of Rs. 35,226 included expe...
Yeast Alco Enzymes Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(194)ELT269(Guj); (2005)2GLR1700
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging order dated 26th November, 1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar - respondent No.3, order dated 27th December, 2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and order dated 8th January,2004 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following substantial reliefs are prayed :'14. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner prays as under : (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the present petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction or declaration declaring that Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are ultravires the Constitution of India; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »