Gujarat Court April 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.
Federation of Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj270; 2006FAJ265; (2006)1GLR528
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Shri Saurin Mehta, the learned Advocate for M/s Nanavati & Nanavati waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent in Special Civil Application Nos.14389 and 14870 of 2004. Shri J.S. Yadav, the learned advocate waives service for Rule for respondents in remaining matters of this group. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, all these matters are heard together and as the common questions of law and facts arise in all these special civil applications, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In this group of petitions, the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the action of the respondents in preventing of use of BIS marking, more particularly, IS : 14543 : 2004 in respect of flexible pouches (sachets) of water manufactured by them as null and void, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The respective petitioners have also challenged the decision of the respondents in no...
Employees State Insurance Corp. Vs. Kishanbhai Kalabhai, S/O Decd. Kal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1176]; (2006)ILLJ973Guj
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Kalabhai Ramabhai, belonging to Scheduled Caste and working as Sweeper in Parshuram Pottery Works Company Ltd. was insured having insurance No. 37/2900125. He died on 4th September, 1984 in the morning hours while on duty. About the incident in question, immediate information was given to the concerned officer of the factory. He was removed to the hospital where he was declared dead. His poor and illiterate widow Labhuben filed E.S.I. Application No. 6/90 claiming dependency benefits on the death of her husband - deceased Kalabhai on 4th September, 1984. Reply (Exh.4) was filed on 27th February, 1991 on behalf of the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Ahmedabad - present appellant. On 13th March, 1997, application (Exh.6) was submitted by applicant Labhuben for producing documentary evidence on record and all the documentary evidence were taken on record in view of 'no objection' given by the advocate of the Corporation. Before her application came to be decided,...
Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Jal S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2515
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'), petitioner, have filed present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 4th March, 1986, passed by the Industrial Tribunal ('the tribunal' for short), Ahmedabad in Reference (I.T.) No.693 of 1980.1.1 The tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has held that, as regards demand for fixation of working hours and overtime, it would be fair enough if the workmen of the Corporation are given these benefits on the same lines as in the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). The tribunal also held that the benefits of working hours of the workmen in the tube wells shall be on same limes as in the said Rules particularly Rule 24. The tribunal further held that the overtime shall be paid at double the rates of wages on the same lines as provided under the said Ru...
Prathamkumar Vs. Indian Institute of Management
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR1979
ORDERAt this stage, Shri Paresh Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - IIM requests to stay implementation and operation of this judgment. Considering urgency and for the reasons stated in the main special civil application, prayer made at this stage, is rejected....
In Re: Glofame CotspIn Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]72SCL341(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. These are the petitions filed by two petitioner-companies for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation of Glofame Cotspin Industries Ltd. (the transferor-company) with Welspun India Ltd. (the transferee-company) and their respective members and creditors, under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The transferor-company was incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, on March 14, 1992, under the name and style of J.M. Patel Sales Private Ltd. Its name has undergone several changes and the present name of the company was adopted from January 15, 2002. The transferor-company is a public limited company and the promoters are holding about 74.82 per cent, of the total issued, subscribed and paid up equity share capital of the company whilst financial institutions and the general public hold the remaining shares. The transferee-company was incorporated and registered under the Act on January 17,1985, in the State of Maharashtra under the ...
Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. Vs. Mohmed Sayed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ599Guj
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Appellant-M/s. Pepsico India Holding Ltd., being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.98 passed in Special Civil Application No. 10818 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge, whereunder the order dated 23.11.1998 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has been confirmed, is before this Court under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent. It would be necessary to note that present is the second round of litigation at the instance of the present appellant. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent made an application before the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act (referred to as 'authority' for the sake of brevity) for certain reliefs against the present appellant. The appellant raised certain issues including that there was no relation of employer and employee and in view of the salary of more than Rs. 1600/- being paid to the respondent, the authority would have no jurisdic...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Somabhai Khataria Vasava
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR912]; (2005)3GLR2579
D.N. Patel, J.1. Present petition is preferred against the award dated 10-1-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 299 of 1996, whereby punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the petitioner Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has been reduced to stoppage of three annual increments with future effect and reinstatement in service was awarded.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch is, prima facie, erroneous and bad in law. He has also submitted that misconduct committed by the respondent workman was that when he was on his duty in the State Transport bus as a conductor, he recovered the bus fare from two passengers and had not issued tickets to them till the place of checking and those two tickets were recovered by the Checking Squad as unpunched tickets. Similarly, another passenger who boarded the S.T. bus from Ora village and he was to get down at village Samani, from the...
Barkha Investmnt and Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)342; [2006]281ITR316(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following question is 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:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee company was not a financial company within the meaning of clause (c) of Explanation to Sub-sec. 8 of Sec. 40A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, the ITO was justified in making disallowance from expenditure by way of interest paid by the assessee on deposits ?'2. The Assessment Year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is calender year 1981. The assessee, a Private Limited Company, derives income from business of purchase and sale of shares. While finalizing the assessment on 31st March, 1983, the Assessing Officer held :'2. Provisions of Sec. 40A(8) are not applied as the assessee company is a financial company (Investment Company) as defined in clause (c) o...
Shiv Marine Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1808
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the order of final assessment stated to have been made on 16.12.2002 and communicated to the Petitioner on the same day as per Annexure - 'D'. 2. The Petitioner Company who is carrying on business of dismantling and demolishing of condemned ships at S.B.Y., Alang, entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 28.11.2002 to purchase a vessel named M.V. LINCOLNSHIRE. In pursuance of the said agreement, a notarized bill of sale came to be issued to the Petitioner on 29.11.2002. It is the case of the Petitioner that for ensuring that the vessel is beached timely it agreed to a provisional assessment and accordingly paid custom duty on 5.12.2002. Thereafter, the Petitioner Company was served with the aforesaid communication dated 16.12.2002 intimating that final assessment has been framed on the same day i.e. 16.12.2002. The petitioner Company corresponded with Respondent Authorities seeking an opportunity of hearing, but the request ...
Patel Kashiram Gangaram Vs. Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: [2005]61SCL21(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. All these petitions are filed by the petitioning Creditors under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent Company.2. On 14.03.2001, this Court has admitted all these petitions. However, publication of advertisement was deferred till 28.03.2001. The Court has observed that on that day i.e. on 28.03.2001, the learned advocate for the respondent Company shall come forward with the instructions regarding deferment of the publication. When all these matters were taken up for hearing regarding publication of advertisement on 16.10.2001, this Court has passed further order regarding advertisement and the petitions were ordered to be advertised in local daily Newspapers 'Indian Express' English and 'Jansatta' - Gujarati that final hearing was fixed on 29.11.2001. Advertisement in the Official Gazette was dispensed with.3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Company carried the matter in appeal before the Divis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »