Gujarat Court October 2006 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Mahavir Engineering and Electric Stores
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: (2009)22VST564(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the assessee are heard.2. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad has decided certain issues in favour of the assessee vide its judgment dated December 9, 1994 delivered in Revision Application Nos. 86 and 87 of 1993. The Tribunal held that the 'tool-bits' would fall under entry No. 3(ix) of Schedule II, Part A appended to the Act and 'jobber-drills' (drill pana) would be covered by entry No. 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act read with entry No. 36 of the Government Notification issued under Section 49(2) of the Act. The Revenue, being dissatisfied with the said order, made an application for reference, the same was allowed and a reference has been made to this court under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 for its opinion on the following question:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal dated Dec...
Tag this Judgment!Angsley Investment Ltd. Vs. Turus Shipping Service and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj23
ORDER XIV 1. Framing of issues.-(1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds; (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and [after examination under Rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders], ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Babuji Mulaji Marvadi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj27
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the suit filed by the plaintiff was premature as there was no cause of action in his favour?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, could a Civil Court grant an injunction against the licensor that he would not be entitled to revoke the license granted by him in favour of the licensee under a Scheme relating to distribution of the essential commodity?With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.2. The plaintiff was awarded a license for distribution of kerosene among the card-holders attached to his ration shop. Apprehending a foul play on the part of the State Government, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for the following reliefs:(i) That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the defendants have no authority to cancel the plaintiff's license, nor they have any right or aut...
Tag this Judgment!Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR213
M.R. Shah, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the provisions of Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods for the Local Areas Act, 2001 (Entry Tax Act) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] as ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the notices issued by the respondents No. 3 and 4 dated 24th March 2004, 1st April 2004 and 27th May 2004 at Annexure 'B' to the petition by which the petitioner is called upon to produce the certificate with regard to payment of entry tax.2. The Statement and Objects of the Act, the Preamble, and the relevant provisions of the Act are as under;Statement of Objects and Reasons (Bill No. 36 of 2001):This Bill seeks to introduce the entry tax on the specified goods with a view to giving effect to the proposal contained in the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister in the Legislative Asse...
Tag this Judgment!Nagkunverba Balvantsinh Through Her P.A. Mansinh M. Atalia Vs. Parthiv ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR735
Jayant Patel, J.1. As all the matters are inter-connected and common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common judgment.2. The short facts of the case are that one Mohmed Albha was holding the land situated in the sim of Village Kanbha somewhere in the year 1945. The said Mohmed Albha mortgaged the land with one Dr. Lomeshprasad Desai. The said Dr. Lomeshprasad Desai gave the very land on lease basis for cultivation to Mohmed Albha. Thereafter, as Mohmed Albha was in arrears of the rent, Dr. Lomeshprasad Desai commenced the proceedings under Section 21 read with Section 14 of Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for recovery of the possession of the land. It appears that on 12.9.1956, ultimately the order was passed by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, confirming the order for giving possession to Dr. Desai in the revision proceedings No. 2812 of 1956. Thereafter, on 12.3.1957, Dr. Lomeshprasad Desai obtai...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Somabhai Vankar and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2029; (2007)1GLR793
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant-United Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged in this appeal the impugned judgment and award dated 7-5-1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 607 of 1995 partly allowing the claim petition of the respondents-claimants.2. The claimant Shri Rameshbhai Somabhai Vankar belonging to the lower strata of society i.e. Vankar from Scheduled Castes met with an accident when he was going on his bicycle on 4-3-1995 at .4-30 p.m. near Limkheda bridge on Dohad-Godhra Highway by tanker No. G.J-2T-8543 which was driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver-Fuljibhai Gulabji Thakor. He was only 18 years old at the time of the accident doing Diploma in Agriculture after completing S.S.C. Because the tanker dashed with the claimant, he received serious injuries on his person. He became unconscious and was removed to S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara. After 15 days of the treatment, he regained con...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Cadmach Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Guj)285
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the following questions of law arising out of its order dated 22.12.1995 in WTA No. 2589/Ahd/1991 in respect of assessment year 1986-87.(1) Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the value of the factory building and research building which were under construction and not in actual use for the purpose of business as contemplated under the provisions of Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983?(2) Whether, by allowing the claim of the assessee, the appellate Tribunal has not caused violation to the plain and simple language used in Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983?2. The facts stated are that the factory and research buildings were under the process of construction during the year under consideration. The assessee claimed exemption from wealth tax on the buildings under const...
Tag this Judgment!Sumlo @ Sumla Himla Bhuriya and 2 ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ612; (2007)3GLR2734
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The present is the application filed praying that,9(A) Your Lordships be pleased to allow this application and be pleased to pass an appropriate order for concurrent both the sentences awarded by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 43/2000, vide order dtd. 11th April 2001 and ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, Fast Track Court, in Sessions Case No. 136/2000 vide order dtd/13/5/2003 in the interest of justice.2. The learned advocate has placed on record a copy of the order dated 09.05.2003 passed by this Court (Coram: Sharad D. Dave, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2296 of 2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2000. The learned advocate had submitted that a similar order be passed in the present application also. She invited attention of the Court to paras 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the said order. The same are reproduced hereinbelow for ready perusal.8. In support of her submission, Ms. S.G. Patel, learned advocate for the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Azad Ice Factory Vs. Guj. Industrial Investment Corpn.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj29
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff M/s. Azad Ice Factory, a registered partnership firm had purchased certain property. M/s. Krishna Ice Factory from whom the property was purchased, at the time of the purchase of the property even had informed the plaintiff that there were certain dues of Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation, the plaintiff accordingly discharged the liabilities. It is the case of the plaintiff that from the letters of the defendant, it was clear that amount of Rs. 35,556.75 remained unpaid. According to them, all of a sudden, somewhere in the year 1984, they received a notice dated 10.3.84 from the defendant that the plaintiff was liable to pay sum of Rs. 3,63,481/-.2. It appears that thereafter, the respondent submitted a certificate for recovery before the Collector/Recovery Officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Moneys [Recovery of Dues] Act, 1979 [hereafter referred to as the Recovery Act']. The Collector, exercising his powers under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hansaguri Prafulchandra Ladhani and 5 ors. Vs. the Oriental Insur ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1897; 2007(4)KLT49
M.S. Shah, J. 1. This application involves interpretation of the provisions of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction at source of the income-tax payable on the interest received by the claimants on the compensation received by them pursuant to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2.1 This application is filed by the heirs of deceased Prafulchandra Narbheram Ladhani, who had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of death of Prafulchandra Narbheram Ladhani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') on 1.4.1991 in a motor vehicle accident between an Ambassador car in which the deceased was travelling and a public carrier truck. The claim petition was filed by Smt. Hansaguri, widow of the deceased, four daughters (claimant Nos. 2 to 5) and son Naresh (claimant No. 6).2.2 The original claim petition being MAC Petition No. 743 of 1991 was filed on 30.9.1991 b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »