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.
O.L. of Mermaid Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC564; [2005]64SCL252(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Official Liquidator has filed this report seeking direction from this Court to the purchaser, viz. Sainath Disposals to pay the balance amount with 18% interest and take delivery of assets. The Official Liquidator has sought the permission to forfeit the amount paid by the purchaser and to invite fresh tenders for sale of assets.2. The Official Liquidator has submitted in his report that by an order dated 05.09.1991 passed by this Court, the Company viz. M/s. Mermaid Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up and he was appointed as Liquidator thereof with usual powers under the Companies Act, 1956. He has further submitted that by an another order dated 20.03.1997 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 277 of 1996, he was permitted to sell all the properties of the Company in liquidation.3. The O.L. has further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the Newspapers, he has received only two offers for Lot No. II i.e. Plant and machinery a...
Kaushalbhai Rameshbhai Desai Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2428
J.R. Vora, J.1. This Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging his detention in pursuance of the order passed against him by the District Magistrate, Surat on 25th January, 2005 in exercise of powers conferred upon him vide Sub-Section (2)(a) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (PBM Act for short). The petitioner is under detention in pursuance of the said order from 25th January, 2005.2. The grounds of detention as placed on record reveal the factual background that the petitioner was a dealer of oil companies and was granted a license according to rules for distribution of blue kerosene to the fair price shops of specified area of Surat District. The blue kerosene is an essential commodity under the control orders framed by the State Government by virtue of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the blue kerosene is subsidized by th...
Kaminiben Mangaldas Shah Vs. Bharatbhai Rasiklal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj279
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned counsel Mrs. Nisha Parikh for the appellant - wife and Mr. Kinariwala for the opponent husband. Mr. Kinariwala supported the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and submitted that it does not require any interference by this court in this appeal.2. The opponent - husband filed Family Suit No. 344 of 2001 before the Family Court at Ahmedabad for obtaining decree of dissolution of marriage with his wife - present appellant on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said suit was allowed by Mrs. L.R. Abichandani, learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad by her impugned judgment and order dated 31st July, 2002 whereby she ordered that the marriage solemnised between the husband and wife is declared to be dissolved from the date of decree on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act').3. The appellant - wife married with the respo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)404; [2006]281ITR297(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drainage and sewerage network constituted plant and machinery and was entitled to investment allowance u/s 32A of the I.T. Act on its cost of rs.63,54,058/-? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that tractor-trailers used for lifting and carrying equipments and materials constituted plant and machinery and were entitled to investment allowance u/s 32A of the I.T. Act?'2. The respondent assessee company is a Public Limited Company carrying on business of manufacture of chemical fertilizers. The Assessment Year is 1983-84 and the relevant accounting period is calender y...
Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Meenakshiben Bhanushankar Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1012]
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. A short but interesting question, which has come to the surface in this Letters Patent Appeal, by invocation of Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, is as to 'whether employer of a part-time, or daily-wager or `ad hoc' appointee or any worker appointed for a stipulated period or for fixed hours (in this case for two hours) without there being regular process of recruitment for any sanctioned post and incompatible to and in contravention of the Recruitment Rules, could be directed by the Labour Court by passing, an award, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act') for his service being regularised or to give benefit of permanency in service? This is the entire, lynchpin, of this Writ Petition.2. With a view to appreciating the merits of this Letters Patent Appeal and the challenge against it, let us first screen and scan through a skeleton projection of factual profile leading to the rise of the appeal on hand i.e.:-(i) The respondent came to be appointed, on 23-...
Plasto Precessors Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR993
Jayant Patel, J.1. In all the group of petitions points for which hearing has taken place, are common and therefore they are being dealt with by this common judgment. The contentions as sought to be raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties to the extent they are relevant shall be dealt with hereinafter while dealing with the connected point.2. It appears that the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act') has come into force vide notification, dated 10.6.2003 of the Govt. of India for the whole of the country. However, in the Act itself there are powers with the State Govt as per section 172(b) to declare that any or all the provisions contained in the new Act shall not apply in the State for such period not exceeding six months from the appointed day as may be stipulated in the notification. It further appears that in exercise of aforesaid power for Gujarat State notification, dated 4.6.2003 has been issued by the State Govt dec...
Kanjibhai Dahyabhai Malsattar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1649
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common questions of law and facts arise in the present group of petitions, these Special Civil Applications are being disposed of by this common order. As such the Special Civil Applications No. 18260 of 2003 and 18261 of 2003 are filed by the petitioners who are petitioners No. 2 and 4 of Special Civil Application No. 14579 of 2003 and they have filed separate one page petitions, being Special Civil Applications No. 18260 and 18261 of 2003. Special Civil Application No. 14579 of 2003 be treated as main Special Civil Application.2. In the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order permanently restraining the respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e., Secretary, Department of Town Planning and Urban Development, State of Gujarat, and Anjar Area Development Authority from acting upon the notices dated 2/3-10-2003 which are at Annexure 'K' to the petition by whi...
Abbasbaig Habibbaig Mirza Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2418
M.D. Shah, J.Heard Mr. P.J. Malkhan for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent-State.Rule. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.P.P. waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today.1. This Criminal Revision application filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-9-2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case no. 245 of 2004 below Exh.6 whereby the application for discharge preferred by the accused no. 3-the present applicant under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came to be rejected.2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, that are required for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Application are as follows:2.1 On the day of incident i.e. 31-12-2002 at about 17.00 hrs. on the road leading to Naroda from G...
L and T Niro Limited Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj355; I(2006)BC321
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 29th December 2004 passed below Exhibits 5 and 23 in Civil Suit No. 459/2004 by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara whereby Application Exh.5 was partly rejected and injunction was refused against encashment of performance of security guarantee and Application Exh.23 was partly allowed.2. The present appellant M/s L & T Niro Limited (hereinafter referred to as L & TNL or appellant or plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No. 459/2004 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara, against The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd (hereinafter referred to as MPML or the respondent No. 1 or Defendant No. 1) and IDBI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank or respondent No. 2 or defendant No. 2) praying as under:(a) that, pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining Defendant No. 1, its officers a...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Haansraj Muljibhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1119]; (2005)2GLR1526
D.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel Mr. K. M. Paul waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1971 and 1975 for stoppage of increments for two years, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute in the year 2000, i.e. nearly after 1/4th of century. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the order dated 6th August, 1971, as well as the order dated 4th January, 1975, the said orders were never challenged by the respondent before any competent Court of law. There are several defaults of the respondent-workman who was a conductor. There is a detailed list of defaults of the said conductor which was enlisted with the reply of statement of claim which was presented before Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »