Gujarat Court September 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Vadilal Popatlal Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2752
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 27th March, 1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar in Summary Case No. 808 of 1988 acquitting the respondent accused of the charges under Section 7 and 16 of the Code of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short). This court (Coram : A.N. Divecha, J.) vide order dated 1.10.1996 admitted the appeal and the hearing was expedited.2. The case of the appellant in short is that the original complainant Food Inspector, as such in the Bhavnagar District, visited the shop of the vendor accused on 7.11.1987 situated at Vartej at about 9.30 AM. He had called panch witness Shri Narsang Haribhai Mori. After introducing himself as a Food Inspector and informing the accused vendor that he had came to collect the sample, he purchased 750 grams of Split P...
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) Vs. Panchratna Hotels Pv ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: [2009]313ITR398(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant Revenue has proposed the following two questions:(1) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that no penalty can be levied when assessed income is loss ignoring the provision of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c)?(2) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that there was no concealment on the part of the respondent?2. Heard Mr. K.M. Parikh, the learned standing counsel for the appellant.3. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal dated September 5, 2002, the Tribunal has followed the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, i.e., after introduction of Explanation 4 below Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and come to the conclusion that if the finally assessed income is a loss, no penalty is leviable and Explanation 4 does n...
A.K. Chaudhary and 2 ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ726
Jayant Patel, J.1. Life is dear to everybody and death is painful to one and all. Should sentiments prevail or discipline for the administration of any institution Can sentiments be allowed to be enforced over rule of law Can the action or inaction or propriety of action or inaction to discharge legal obligation be said as an aid or instigation or abetment to commit suicide The aforesaid are the aspects which directly or indirectly arise for the consideration of this Court in the present group of petitions.2. The short facts of the case are as under:(i) There is no dispute on the following aspects:a. Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC for short) is a statutory body governed by the provisions of LIC Act and its employees are governed by the Regulations framed by LIC in exercise of the statutory power under LIC Act.b. The deceased Dineshbhai Ganpatbhai Parmar was an employee of LIC holding of the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer.c. The petitioners of...
Abdulkarim Alibhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1073
H.N. Devani, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order/letter dated 28th April 1997 passed by the Collector, Junagadh (Annexure SK), whereby the petitioner has been informed that his application for regularisation of encroachment has been rejected by the State Government.2. The facts stated briefly are that, by an order dated 26th April, 1978 of the City Survey Superintendent, Prabhas-Patan, Junagadh, the petitioner had been granted lease in respect of land admeasuring 23.78 sq. mtrs. situated on the south of city survey No. 516 at Block No. C of Prabhas Patan of Veraval Taluka on an annual basis. The aforesaid lease was extended by an order dated 26th November, 1978. It appears that thereafter, despite the aforesaid lease having come to an end, the petitioner continued to occupy the said land unauthorizedly, hence, the City Survey Superintendent & Additional Mamlatdar, Prabhas Patan, initiated proceedings under Sec...
Videcon Narmada Electronics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Navbharat Ferro Alloys L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj29
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr. R.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.M. Thakar, learned counsel appearing with Miss Anar Parikh, learned counsel on behalf of M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the respondents.2. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-orig.defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 97 of 1997 have prayed that this Court should exercise powers and should quash and set aside the order dated 16th April, 2005, passed below Exh.103 by the ld.Civil Judge (S.D.) and permit the petitioners-orig.defendants to submit their written statement in the Suit pending with the Court. The application Exh. 103 was submitted by the petitioners-orig.defendants stating that due to the mistake committed, the petitioners could not submit their written statement and, therefore, they may be permitted to file their written statement. The mistake in the application has been explained by way of an affidavit dated 01st October, ...
Punjabhai Jethabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR199
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30th June 1995, passed by the State Government (Annexure SF); the order dated June 1993, passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha (Annexure SE); the order dated 29th May 1989, passed by the Deputy Collector, LAND-8 Scheme, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar (Annexure SD); as well as the order dated 13th January 1989 passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha (Annexure SC). The petitioner prays that the order dated 21st May 1984, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Scheme ' 11, Visnagar, (Annexure SB) be confirmed.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner Patel Punjabhai Jethabhai who was the owner of land admeasuring 2 Acres 11 gunthas of Survey No. 101 of village Bundheli, Taluka Bhiloda, transferred the said lands to one Manglaji Dhanaji Bhagora in exchange for lands admeasuring 2 acres of Survey No. 94/2 of the same village owned by the said Mangalaji by way...
Shreno Investment and Finance Limited Vs. Registar of Company
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: [2007]75SCL275(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. Heard Ms. Soparkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.J. Malkan with Mr. Malkan, learned Counsel for the Opponent finally.2. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether it is open to the respondent Registrar of Companies to insist for additional compliance of Section 21 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), when this Court has sanctioned the scheme for amalgamation, which included the change of name.3. There is no dispute on the factual aspects that there was a scheme of amalgamation between M/s. Shreno Limited and M/s. Shreno Investment and Finance Limited. There is also no dispute on the point that for getting appropriate sanction of the scheme of amalgamation Company Petitions No. 137 and 138 of 2004 were preferred by the Transferer and the Transferee Company. There is also no dispute on the point that when this Court (Coram: A.R. Dave, J.) considered the matter for granting sanction to the...
Umar Sumar Bhudhu Gagada Vs. Bhuj Area Development Authority and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj20
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. RM Chhaya, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the decisions reflected in the order dtd. 5/11/2004 in so far as it seeks to charge Rs. 8800.00 per sq.mtrs, with respect of the allotment of Final Plot No. 363, Town Planning Scheme No. 8 (Bhuj), decided to be allotted to the petitioner on priority basis as earthquake affected person and it is further prayed to direct the respondent ' Bhuj Area Development Authority and its Land Valuation Committee to reconsider the said price on the basis of facts and contentions raised in the present petition and to arrive at a reasonable price to be charged in respect of the allotment of the plot to the petitioner.4. The petitioner claims to be an earthqu...
Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Thakar Hasmukhhai Khelshanker
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj16
C.K. Buch, J.Heard Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Rule is served to the otherside and the respondent No. 1-orig. Defendant has opted to appear in person. On earlier occasion, the orig. defendant has filed reply affidavit in vernacular language (Gujarati) on 29th April, 2005 and the same is on record at pg. 36. 1. I have considered the contents of the reply affidavit, mainly the points of resistance. The petitioner is the orig. plaintiff and I am told by Mr. Majmudar that the orig. plaintiff has examined the witnesses in support of the Suit and a detailed cross-examination of the witnesses examined has been made by the otherside in the trial Court. When the orig. defendant was asked to produce his evidence he applied that a witness from the office of the orig. plaintiff-Electricity Board may be called as his witness. I am told that the officers aware about the facts and details as to the dispute between the parties have been examined and they are availa...
Bileshwar Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)464; [2006]282ITR480(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 both the assessee and the Revenue:At the instance of the assessee for A.Y. 1981-82 & 1982-83:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the liability to claim deduction of Rs. 21,67,041/- had not arisen and the assessee was not entitled to claim the same as such either in A.Y. 1981-82 or A.Y. 82-83 based on final judgments of Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court of India and discharging of the said liability by payment ?At the instance of the Revenue:(i) For A.Ys. 78-79 to 80-81Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow the provision of interest made by the assessee as deduction ?(ii)For A.Ys. 1979-80 to 83-84:Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »