Gujarat Court January 2006 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.
Patel Brass Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Guj)139; [2006]286ITR598(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the assessee:[1] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of loss of Rs. 80,000/- as business loss?[2] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of loss of Rs. 80,000/- as short term loss?2. The assessment year is 1986-87, the relevant accounting period being Samvat Year 2041. The assessee, a registered firm, is engaged in the business of manufacturing spare-parts of diesel engines. In the profit & loss account, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- had been debited as capital loss on machinery. The facts in relation to the said entry are that the assessee entered into a contra...
O.N.G.C. Ltd. Vs. O.L. of Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. and 11 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas606(Guj); [2006]71SCL274(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SONGC) appellant (original applicant) has filed this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the application being Company Application No. 445 of 2000 in Company Petition No. 121 of 1995 preferred by the appellant has been rejected.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER:2.1 ONGC was initially a department of the Government of India but, in view of its expanding activities in the search for strategic and vital materials like oil, petroleum and its products it was set up as a body corporate. It is now a statutory corporation constituted by and under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act (Central Act 43 of 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act provides for the establishment of a Commission Sfor the development of petroleum and petr...
Mahamad Parvezkhan Mahamad Faruqkhan Shaikh and anr. Vs. State of Guja ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR925
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Above numbered two appeals, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are directed against judgment dated July 26, 2002 rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2001, by which the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2002, who was original accused No. 1 as well as two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2002, who were original accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2001 are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act for short) and each sentenced to RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), in default RI for 2 years.2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:Mr. Krishnakumarsinh Chandrakumarsinh Chudasama, who was then Police Inspector, Anti-Terrorist Squad, was on duty in his office in the morning of July 19, ...
PravIn A. Parmar Vs. Secretary Yourh, Services and Cultural Activities ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2059
Jayant Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. Pinakin Raval, Ms. Sadhana Sagar, Mr. Japee, Mr. Virendra Baheti, Mr. Dagli, Mr. Vyas, Mr. Pandya, Mr. Jaykuar Patel, Mr. D.P. Vora, Mr. Astavadi, Mr. Devang Vyas, Mr. Tandel and Mr. Dalal, learned Counsel appearing for the concerned petitioners as well as Mr. Dipan Desai, learned AGP appearing for the State, Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for respondent Kheda District Panchayat appearing in the concerned petitions and Mr. Mehul Rathod, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 in the concerned petitions.2. As all the petitions are inter-connected and common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common order.3. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are working as part-timer in the respective Department of the State Government or the office is under the direct or indirect control of the State Government. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on the concerned posts as part-timer and the duty was for diff...
Colourtex and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOi) thr' Secretary and 4 Ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(198)ELT169(Guj); 2008[9]STR426
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition primarily and substantially challenges order dated 6/12/2005 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai as well as the reference made by Division Bench of CESTAT on 12/8/2005.2. Heard Mr. K.B. Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. Taking into consideration the controversy and necessity of finally disposing of the question brought before the Court the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Mr. Oza waives service.BRIEF FACTS.3. On 19/12/2003 vide Order-in-Original made by respondent No. 2 redetermining the FOB value of the exports and consequent reduction in DEPB credit, the petitioner was held to be not entitled to the originally granted credit. The said order came to be challenged by way of an Appeal before CESTAT. On 12/08/200...
Sharda Chemicals and ors. Vs. Fulaji Babaji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR297]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Dipak R. Dave, on behalf of the petitioners and learned Advocate, Mr. T.R. Mishra, appearing for respondents. 2. In this matter, initially, this Court has issued rule returnable on 1st week of November,2004 and ad-interim relief granted was remained continued by order dated 28th June,2004. This Court by order dated 20th February,2004 directed to petitioners to deposit Rs.10,000/- being Rs.2500/- per workman towards probable cost. That amount has been deposited by petitioners on 4th March, 2004. According to prayer made in petition, petitioners have challenged award passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 9th May,2001 in Reference No. 1217 of 1990 and order passed on Misc. Application No. 348 of 2001 dated 25th June,2003 in Reference No. 1217 of 1990. The services of respondents terminated by petitioners. According to respondents, services were terminated with effect from 28th January,1990. Therefore, dispute was raised against present p...
Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors. Vs. A.A. Makwana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1194
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. This Special Civil Application has been preferred by the petitioner, Union of India, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench (hereinafter referred CAT) in O.A. No. 96/92, decided on 6th March, 2000 whereby the CAT has set-aside the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent (original applicant before the CAT) by the appellate authority as well as the order of the disciplinary authority and has directed the petitioner (original respondent before the CAT) not to treat the applicant as reverted and further directed that all the consequential benefits available to the respondent be allowed to him as per the rules.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case pleaded by the petitioner are that the respondent was in the service of the petitioner as Senior TTI. The respondent was on duty on 5th April, 1990 in Gujarat Express, going from Ahmedabad to Bombay Central, in Sleeper Coach S-9. Soon after...
Natwarlal Chhotulal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR166]; (2006)1GLR803
Jayant Patel, J.1. Mr. Pujara, learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to delete respondent No.4 as the action of respondent No.4 is not challenged. Permission granted. Rule. Mr. Desai, learned AGP waives service of Rule for Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel waives service of Rule for Respondent No. 3 and with the consent of both the sides matters are finally heard today.2. In all the petitions common questions are involved and, therefore, they are being dealt with by this common order.3. The petitioners have preferred these petition to quash and set aside the action of the respondent in denying the benefits of inter-district transfer to the petitioners from Dang District to Valsad on the ground that the petitioners concerned have availed the benefits of inter-district transfer in the past prior to the Government Resolutions dated 8.4.1999 and 4.6.2004. The petitioners have also prayed to declare that the benefit of inter-district transfer cannot be denie...
In Re: Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)5CompLJ99(Guj)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The present company petition is filed for sanctioning the arrangement embodied in the scheme of amalgamation of Indo Gulf Fertilizers Ltd. (transferor company) with Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (formerly known as Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd.) (transferee company), whereby the undertaking (as defined in the scheme) of the transferor company shall stand transferred and vest in the transferee company on the terms and conditions, as stated in the scheme of amalgamation.2. I have heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner. I have considered the contents of the petition and the totality reflected from the annexures annexed with the petition.3. Earlier, by order dated 7 October 2005 in company application No. 331 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner company, i.e., the transferee company, this court directed the petitioner company to hold and convene the meeting of the equity shareholders for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving...
Dr. Anil K. Khandelwal and 14 ors. Vs. Shri Maksud Saiyed and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3180; (2006)3GLR2043
K.A. Puj, J.1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 5389 of 2005 is filed by Dr. Anil K. Khandelwal and 14 others under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint Inquiry No. 14 of 2005 lodged by the complainant, namely, Shri Maksud Saiyed, Director of Nagami Nicotine Pvt. Ltd., in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 120-B, 177, 181, 191, 192, 200, 209, 405, 409, 415, 420, 425, 463, 464, 468, 470, 471, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and which has been registered as M Case No. 7/2005 at Sayajiganj Police Station pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, dated 28.2.2005 forwarding the Criminal Complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The case of the complainant / present respondent is that Dena Bank floated a public issue of 8 crores equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »