Gujarat Court September 2005 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Karsanbhai Jesang
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR695
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Ms. Mita Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of petitioner-State of Gujarat.2. This matter came up for admission hearing before Court on 11-6-2001 on which date, Rule was issued making by it returnable on 3-7-2001, and ad interim relief, in terms of Para 5(C) was granted till then. Thereafter, on 28-8-2001, interim relief was extended upto 6-9-2001. From perusal of original record, it appears that ad interim relief has not been extended thereafter. Not only that, no such request was made on behalf of the State for extension of ad interim relief. From 7th September, 2001, the impugned award passed by the labour Court, Surendranagar, was required to be implemented by the State of Gujarat, because thereafter, no interim relief was continued and it came to an end on 6th September, 2001. This is the sorry state of affairs. This petition was admitted since the Government Pleader pointed out judgment dated 1-1-2001 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prithviraj Bhoorchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)82; [2006]280ITR94(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following common question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s.263 of the Act whereby he had directed the ITO to pass a fresh order withdrawing the deduction granted u/s.80-I?2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessment Years are 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 and the relevant accounting periods are Samvant Years 2039, 2040 and 2041 respectively. For the years under consideration the Assessing Officer allowed deduction under Section .80-I of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax after going through the records came to the conclusion that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the aforesaid years are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He, therefore, in the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Express Hotel P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)476; [2006]281ITR160(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. These are cross references filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, and the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85. 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 Revenue for the assessment year 1983-84 :R.A. No. 470/AM/1992Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 7,64,769 as statutory liability of luxury tax collected by the assessee 2. The assessee-company runs a hotel. For the assessment year 1983-84, the accounting period is the financial year ended on March 31, 1983. It was originally assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 17,36,262. The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated action under Section 263 of the Act, as according to him, an amount of Rs. 7,64,769 being the luxury tax recovered by the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Export-import Bank of India Vs. O.L. of Shri Minal Oil and Agro Indust ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: [2007]136CompCas387(Guj); [2006]72SCL145(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties for final disposal. 2. The present application is preferred for the reliefs, inter alia, to direct the OL to give account of the expenses for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- withheld by the OL on ad hoc basis out of the first instalment of Rs. 5 crore and to pay the surplus amount, if any, to the applicant bank after adjusting the expenses as are statutorily required to be borne by the applicant-bank to the extent prescribed by law. The applicant has also prayed for directing the OL to handover the first instalment of Rs. 5 crores received by him from the purchaser along with interest @ 15% p.a.3. Mr. Singhi, Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that the second prayer made for handing over the instalment of Rs. 5 crores with interest does not now survive and as on today the OL has retained the amount of Rs. 63.52 lacs only. Therefore what is required to be considered in the present application is only to the extent of lawfu...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col (Retd) A.P.N. Sinha Vs. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR279]; (2006)1GLR864
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Both these petitions have common question and hence are taken up for hearing and disposal and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both these petitions are filed by the petitioners who were appointed as Manager (Security) by ONGC Limited by order bearing incidentally the same date, i.e. 19.05.1997. The order says that,' The appointment is on tenure basis initially for a period of three years from the date of appointment.Conditions are annexed to the order. Condition No. 4 reads as under:'4. The appointee shall be initially appointed on tenure basis for a period of 3 years in ONGC from the date of his appointment extendable by two years primarily in the corporation.3. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Manager (Security), the services of petitioner in Special Civil Application (SSCA for brevity) No. 5646 of 2002 were extended up to 30.06.2001 and thereafter upto 30.06.2002, while the services of the petitioner in SCA No...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)473; [2005]279ITR552(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gains arising out of the sale of the flat in Venus Apartments was long-term capital gains and thereby the assessee was entitled to deduction from such gains as per law ?'2. The assessment year is 1985-86 and the relevant accounting period is S. Y. 2040. The assessee, an individual, became a member in Venus Apartments (Galaxy Co-operative Housing Society). He was allotted flat No. G. 8 in the building of the society known as Galaxy Bungalow vide resolution No. 5 dated November 4, 1980, passed by the managing committee of the society. The assessee paid the purchase price of the property in instalments as follows :Amount(Rs.) Dat...
Tag this Judgment!C.i.T. Vs. C. Lajpatrai Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Guj)292; [2008]296ITR629(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The appellant revenue has proposed the following question :Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,24,762/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of excess stock of fabric found during search by preventive Wing of the Central Excise Department? 2. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant. It is submitted by him that the Tribunal has failed to assign any reasons as to why the order of CIT (Appeals) was incorrect in any manner whatsoever and in absence of the Tribunal having dealt with the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal could not have reversed the findings recorded by CIT (Appeals) so as to grant relief to the assessee concerned. In support of the proposition, he has placed reliance on decision of this Court rendered in case of Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [2001]251ITR541(Guj) .3. ADMIT. The following substantial que...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Toll Road Investment Company Limited Vs. Blank Name
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: [2008]85SCL226(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present petition is preferred for sanctioning the Scheme of compromise/arrangement and it is further prayed to declare the same to be binding on the petitioner Company and existing lenders of erstwhile Vadodara-Halol Toll Road Company Limited and other persons concerned under the Scheme.2. It appears that initially there was a scheme of amalgamation of Vadodara-Halol Toll Road Company Limited and Ahmedabad-Mehsana Toll Road Company Limited with Gujarat Toll Road Investment Company Limited. The said scheme came to be considered by this Court in the proceedings of Company Petition No. 52 of 2005 and ultimately as per the judgement dated 11.5.2005 passed by this Court (Coram: K.A. Puj, J.) the scheme was sanctioned. The pertinent aspect which may be relevant and shall be dealt with hereinafter would be that at the time when this Court (Coram: K.A. Puj, J.) delivered the judgement, it was undertaken on behalf of the transferee Company, which is the petitioner herein ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. Shree Sainath Surgicals Dressing Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2467
R.S. Garg 12th September, 20051. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned Counsel, appears and has argued the matters. Though respondents are served, but, nobody appears for them.2. The appellant is heard. As none appears for the served respondents, we proceed ex parte against them. We have also heard the parties in First Appeal No. 1570 of 1986.3. The appellant has filed First Appeal No. 1007 of 1986 against Judgement and Decree dated 1st April, 1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Godhra in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1981 being partly dissatisfied against the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit against respondent No. 4.4. Though both the appeals are different and two separate orders are required to be passed by us, but, because of special facts and as the equities are to be adjusted, we are disposing of both the appeals by this common judgment. 5. The short facts necessary for disposal of First Appeal No. 1007 of 1986 are that the plaintiff, which is a Nationalised Bank constituted unde...
Tag this Judgment!Honourable Justice R.J. Shah (Retd.) Fee/Admission Committee Vs. G.S.F ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj40; (2006)1GLR33; [2006(3)JCR157(NULL)]
ORDER23. We, therefore, allow this application in the following terms :-i. Justice RJ Shah (Retd.) Committee for fees/admissions (the Committee) shall hold on 17th/18th September, 2005 common counselling for the students whose names are included in the common merit list prepared on the basis of the results of the CET examination held on 14.8.2005 which list has been produced as an annexure to Civil Application No. 7977 of 2005. The Deans/Principals of the opponent Nos. 3 to 10 colleges shall remain present at the time of common counselling.ii. While considering the case of students for admission to opponent Nos. 3 to 10 colleges, only those students will be considered eligible who obtained at least aggregate 50% marks in the theory papers of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination (e.g. HSC (Science Stream) examination conducted by the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board/Central Board of Secondary Education or other equivalent examinations specified in the Adm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »