Gujarat Court September 2005 Judgments
Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT404(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. Paresh M. Dave, the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Y.N. Ravani, the learned additional standing counsel for the respondents.2. Rule. Mr. Ravani waives service of rule and the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal today with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.3. On 20-10-2004, the petitioners had been directed by this Court by an order made in Special Civil Application No. 9745 of 2002 to file appeal before the appellate authority under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellate authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal late and decide the same on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing, provided the appeal was filed within four weeks from the date of the order along with application for condonation of delay.4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners did file the appeal as directed by this Court, but the application for condonation of delay di...
Tag this Judgment!Chiripal Twisting and Sizing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(198)ELT340(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. P.M. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J.M. Malkan for the respondents.2. Rule. Mr. Malkan waives service of Rule. Considering the fact that the dispute lies in a very narrow compass the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of today.3. On 12.6.2003 an order came to be passed by Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, whereby it dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application for rectification of mistake in the order dated 12.6.2003. This application was filed on 17.10.2003. By order dated 11.2.2005 the Rectification of Mistake Application came to be rejected by the Tribunal in the following terms:2. The present application has been filed seeking rectification of Bench Order dated 12.6.2003. Such rectification has been sought on the grounds that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration important grounds taken in the appeal and during the course of hearing inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs. Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC61; 2006CriLJ1660; (2005)3GLR2474
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Rule. Mr. Shrikar H. Bhatt, learned advocate appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 whereas Mr. HM Prachchhak, learned App appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - State of Gujarat.2. By instant Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.4.2005 recorded below application Ex.6, in Criminal Case No. 865 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Idar, by which the proceedings of complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 for commission of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short) has been ordered to be stopped under Section 258 of the Code and respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and also notice under Section 250 of the Code has been ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Mehbub Abdulgani Kathki (Vendor) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ459; 2006FAJ116; (2006)1GLR255
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 30th May, 1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra in Criminal Case No. 367 of 1994 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1)(A)(B)(J)(14), 7(1)(3)(5) and 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'.) This Court (Coram: A.N. Divecha, J) has granted leave and admitted the appeal vide order dated 7/11/1996.2. The case of the appellant in short is that the original complainant Food Inspector on 24/6/1992 at about 11.00 a.m., visited the shop of the accused. After introducing himself as such, he declared the intention of collecting Sweet Betel Nut pieces known in vernacular as SMeethi Supari for analysis. In presence of panch witness Abdul Razak Chota the complainant purchased 3 packets of 250 grams each meethi supari from ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. PinakIn Dharmishibhai Baraiya and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ792; (2005)3GLR2436
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 617 of 2001 dated October 16, 2004.2. Shortly stated, accident took place on August 30, 2001 near S.T. Bus Stand, Surendranagar. Deceased was travelling by auto-rickshaws returning from Vadhwan to Surendranagar. Meanwhile, one chhakada rickshaw bearing Registration No. GJ-13-T-9498 driven by opponent No. 1 rashly and negligently hit auto-rickshaw. As a result, deceased suffered injury and died. She was 18 year-old, prosecuting studies and carrying on beauty parlour, earning Rs. 3,000-00 p.m. Accordingly, Rs. 5,00,000-00 are claimed.3. Owner and driver appeared through Advocate but did not file written statement. Insurance Company has opposed claim vide written statement Exh. 15 denying averments made in claim petition and liability for payment of compensation. After receiving evidence and hearing parties, claim has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 2,41,0...
Tag this Judgment!Core Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(198)ELT21(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition primarily raises challenge to show cause notice No. DGAE/MZU/205/12(4), dated 23-3-2000 issued by respondent No. 4. The following prayers are made :(a) 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 direction quashing and setting aside impugned Show Cause Notice No. DGAE / MZU / 205 /12(4), dated 24-3-2000;(b) 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 direction quashing and setting aside impugned order No. V.Adj. (SCN) (AEM) 15-28/2000, dated 29-9-2000;(bb) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the proceedings initiated under Rules 57-1 and 57-U in the impugned Show Cause Notice as lapsed in view of substitution thereof by Notification No. 11/2000 CE (NT), dated 1-3...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Vs. Rajkamal Builders and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2401
R.S. Garg, J.1. Rule. With consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The present is an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act for short) against the judgement dated 15.9.2003 by the learned Judge No. 15, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 300 of 2000.3. Though the learned subordinate Judge opened the judgement saying that he was dealing with application under Section 33 of the Act but in fact the application before him was filed under Section 34 of the Act.4. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the Sabarmati Over bridge Project was decided to be constructed by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (SAMC for short) as per the resolutions dated 16.4.1991 and 18.3.1994 passed by the Government. Initially, the estimated cost was Rs. 11 crores. It was decided that AMC, AEC (Ahmedabad Electricity Company), ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) and GSRTC (Gujarat State Road Transpor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nijrang Specific Family Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR148(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961(the 'Act') at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in giving direction to treat the income from compensation under the head income from other sources?2. The Assessment Year is 1985-86, for which the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 31/03/1985. The assessee, a trust, was engaged in a business styled as Nijrang Packaging Industries as a proprietor of the said business. By a partnership deed dated 01/06/1984, the assessee trust through one of its trustees became a partner of a firm styled as M/s.Nijrang Packaging Industries with another trust viz., Bhalchandra Trust as the other partner. Under the terms and conditions of the partnership deed, the goodwill of the erstwhile business was to remain exclusively with the assessee trust. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Dutt Son of Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj1; (2005)3GLR2444
R.S. Garg, J.1. Rule.Mr.A.Y.Kogje, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the act of the respondents asking him to pay the tax on the total capacity of the bus, which includes sitting arrangement and the sleeper berths, treating the whole bus as a sleeper designated omnibus, is before this Court with a submission that according to Section 3A of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (the Act for short), the omnibuses have been classified as ordinary designated omnibuses/luxury or tourist designated omnibuses and the rate of tax is provided under Section 3A of the Act, but, the Home Department has issued a Notification dated 1st April, 2002 whereunder they have inserted Clause-1AA in the schedule appended to the earlier Notification and have provided tax liability on sleeper designated omnibuses. His submission is that no problem would arise in a case where the bus is an ordin...
Tag this Judgment!Rakeshkumar Somabhai Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and 9 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR183
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat dated 27.6.2005 by which the Development Commissioner has withdrawn the show cause notice issued for dissolving the Vagra Gram Panchayat on the ground that the budget was not passed/approved by the said Taluka Panchayat before 31st March 2005 as contemplated under Section 138(3) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]2. Heard Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner; Shri MR Mengdey, learned AGP appearing for and on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2; Shri Pranav Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 10.3. V...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »