Gujarat Court May 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.
Sonali Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: 2008[12]STR524; [2009]20STT441
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Mr. Ramnandan Singh, the learned Counsel prays for permission to amend the prayer clause. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out immediately.2. Rule. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, the learned Counsel for the respondents waives service of rule.3. This petition seeks a declaration to the effect that it is not open to the respondent to effect recovery of alleged dues of Central Excise and also declare that the recovery effected through forceful collection of cheques is illegal and unlawful. A further prayer is seeking direction qua respondent No. 3 to return the cheques which are not deposited.4. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in business of processing of textiles, dyeing and printing, has approached the Court challenging the arbitrary and high handed action on part of respondent No. 3 in initiating recovery of alleged Central Excise duty which the petitioner is not liable to pay in accordance with law. It is averred in the petition that, in connection ...
Bhavnesh Mohanlal AmIn Vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1557; 2005(3)PTC31(Guj)
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS1. In view of the order passed in the main matter, both the civil applications shall not survive. They stand disposed of accordingly. 1. At this stage, Mr. Navin Pahwa learned advocate appearing for Mr. P M Thakkar for the appellant-defendants requests for time to prefer appeal. Mr. Y J Trivedi learned advocate appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs has strongly objected towards the grant of time.2. Initially, this Court was not inclined to grant the request made by the learned advocate for the appellant. However, since Mr. Pahwa learned advocate has stated that the opportunity to prefer an appeal should not be taken away from the appellant, I am of the opinion that some time can be granted to the appellant to prefer the same. 3. In above view of the matter, interim relief granted earlier is extended upto 23/05/2005....
Divisional Manager (Railway) Vs. Mitaben Arjun Bhatiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC456; [2005(107)FLR1179]
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Admit. Shri Shah, learned Counsel appears and waives service for the Respondents.2. There are several Office objections, including the objection regarding the payment of proper and full Court fee stamp not paid by the appellant. However, Ms. Jani for the appellant states that proper court fees stamp is paid. However, she makes it clear that if proper court fees stamp is not paid then it will be paid within one week from today. On this assurance given by Ms. Jani, remaining objections, which are of minor in nature, are waived and this Appeal is disposed of after hearing Ms. Jani on merit. 3. Shri Arjun Bhatia was born on 8.11.1933. He was serving as Engine Driver with appellant Railways since long. On 5.10.1984 he received call to bring Valsad Ahmedabad 9 Down Locomoto from the Yard. When he was on his way to the Yard, because of stress and duress, he received massive heart-attack and died on the spot. Thus, he died while on duty and because of that his widow Meenaben...
Sanghani Bright Steel Manufacturers Vs. Union of India (UOi) thr' Secr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(186)ELT279(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges order No.M-73/WZB/05/C-IV dated 24.02.2005 passed by The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT) (Annexure-H). The facts in nutshell leading to the controversy are :2. The petitioner, a partnership firm was called upon to discharge duty demand of a sum of Rs.11,77,068/- vide Order-In-Original No. 987/Modvat/1997 dated 19.12.1997. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot who vide Order-In-Appeal No.1073/2001/Commr(A)/Raj dated 29.11.2001 allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the Central Excise Department filed an appeal before CESTAT.3. It is the say of the petitioner that under letter F.No.AR-IV/Sanghani Steel/Rec/04-05 dated 27.10.2004 respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to discharge the liability as CESTAT had passed its order dated 5.3.2004 bearing No.C-III/1...
Century Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT400(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, the learned counsel for the respondents waives service of rule.2. This petition seeks a declaration to the effect that it is not open to the respondent to effect recovery of alleged dues of central excise and also declare that the recovery effected through forceful collection of cheques is illegal and unlawful. A further prayer is seeking direction qua respondent No. 3 to return the cheques which are not deposited.3. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in business of processing of textiles, dyeing and printing, has approached the Court challenging the arbitrary and high handed action on part of respondent No. 3 in initiating recovery of alleged central excise dues which the petitioner firm is not liable to pay in accordance with law. It is averred in the petition that, in connection with some inquiry, in case of one Avinash Exports, petitioner No. 2, a partner of the petitioner firm, was required to remain present before the responden...
Nitinbhai Mathurdas Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC128; (2005)3GLR2377
C.K. Buch, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and Ms. N.V. Joshi, ld.APP, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Rule. The formal service of Rule is waived by Ms. N.V. Joshi, ld.APP, on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. A.H. Shah for respondent no.2. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent.3. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the complaint being Criminal Inquiry Case No.299 of 2004 and the order dated 1st September, 2004, passed in Criminal Inquiry Case No.299 of 2004, by the ld.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.4. It is submitted jointly by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as orig.complainant that the parties are not interested in a detailed reasoned order as they have compounded the matter out of the Court and agreed to see that all the litigations comes to an end. The Court is informed th...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Devendrabhai Mulvantrai V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR620]
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated July 15, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8990 of 2003 is before this Court with a plea that as the criminal proceedings are pending consideration against the respondent workman, he would not be entitled to gratuity. It is further submitted that though the employee was allowed to retire from the services, but the departmental proceedings are going on and as such no order for payment for gratuity could be made in favour of the respondent workman in view of Section 4(6) of the Act. Placing reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Calcutta Insurance Ltd. v. Workmen reported in : (1967)IILLJ1SC , it was submitted that the gratuity would be a reward for good, efficient and faithful service rendered for a considerable period and there will be no justification for awarding the same when an employee has commi...
Prakash Surendrabhai Vyas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2237
M.D. Shah, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.R. Prajapati for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent no.1-State.1. Rule. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.P.P. waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. The respondent no.2 though duly served has neither remained present nor filed any affidavit. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today.2. This Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is directed against the order dated 5-5-2003/30-4-2003 passed by the District Collector, Bharuch in ECA/ENFO/Case no.47/2002 ordering 100% confiscation of the stock i.e. 12 KL white kerosene valued at Rs.1,92,000/- as well as the tanker valued at Rs.5,00,000/- which was confirmed in appeal vide order dated 18-6-2004 by the Jt. District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.4, Bharuch, while rejecting Criminal A...
Hamidabanu Balubhai and ors. Vs. Vasantbhai Virabhai Harijan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC661; 2007ACJ240
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Through this judgment, we propose to dispose of both these Appeals (First Appeal No.504/1989 and 505/1989) at the instance of the claimants, seeking enhanced compensation.2. Shortly stated, accident took place on 18-12-1983 by collision between motor cycle No.GAB 7530 and auto rickshaw No.GTS 8055. Balubhai Muljibhai Lakhani (deceased) was driving the motor cycle and Jagdishbhai Parmanandbhai Rupareliya (deceased) was the pillion rider. Both were dealing in business of foodgrains, sugar, edible oil, etc. at Dhari. The accident took place at Bagasara-Hamapar road at about 7.00 p.m. near village Hamapar. The autorickshaw overturned and motor cycle was thrown off the road causing injuries to the occupants of motorcycle, resulting in their death after some time. Balubhai Muljibhai Lakhani was 32 year old while Jagdishbhai Paramanandbhai Rupareliya was 34 1/2 year old, at the time of accident. Opponents are owner/driver of autorickshaw and the Insurance Company with wh...
Ayurvedic Officer Vs. Jerambhai Kavabhai Vala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR699]
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award dtd.12/10/1994 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.30 of 1992 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and to pay cost of Rs.100/-.2. Mr.DD Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly argued that the respondent No.1 was engaged purely on temporary basis for time gape arrangement as part time employee that too as a daily rated employee; that the appointment of the respondent NO.1 was made as per Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act; the respondent No. 1 was engaged without following required and regular procedure for appointment; the respondent NO.1 has not completed 240 days continuously under the petitioners; that as the regular appointment was made, the service of the respondent NO.1 was terminated. Submitting accordingly, it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »