Gujarat Court November 2006 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Takhuben Raghabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ989
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act') is filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 1.10.2005 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in M.A.C. Petition No. 446 of 2000 awarding compensation of Rs. 6,28,400 with proportionate costs and with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.2. Though served, none appears for the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the original claimants. Respondent No. 9 was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Respondent No. 10, company was the owner of the vehicle and when notice for final disposal of the appeal was sought to be served, the company had already closed down. In view of the importance of the issues raised in the appeal, particularly the issues affecting claimants in the motor accident claim petitions, we permitted Mr. Mrugen Purohit and Ms. Amrita Ajmera to intervene an...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Nanavati Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-2006
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR191]; (2007)1GLR788(GJ)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner, who is serving as a Medical Officer in the State Bank of India has challenged the rationality and propriety of the decision taken by the bank in not giving him the benefit of housing loan, motor vehicle loan and other benefits such as scholarship to the children of the petitioner, home town concession, festival loan etc. The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer by order dated 21st July, 1983. As per the appointment order, the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1150/- in scale-I. The terms and conditions in connection with the appointment of the petitioner are also attached along with the appointment order, which is at Annexure-A in the compilation.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as full time medical officer and his services were governed by the conditions contained in Determination of the Terms and Conditions of Service Order, 1979. The case of the petitioner is that he being a full-time employee of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maheshkumar A. Rathod
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR146(Guj); [2009]176TAXMAN283(Guj)
1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the issue being debatable, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing deduction claimed by way of adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. At the outset, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Revenue, fairly admits that the issue is covered against the Revenue by a judgment of this court dated November 2, 2006, in CIT v. Manubhai M. Patel in : [2008]296ITR143(Guj) .3. This Court has considered the issue in the case of Manubhai M. Patel : [2008]296ITR143(Guj) as under (page 145):5. Section 143(1)(a) of the Act says that where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 142, then, particular powers can be exercised by the Assessing Officer. Section 154 of the Act relates to rectification of mistakes. With a view...
Tag this Judgment!Govindbhai Mahipatbhai Desai Since Deceased, Through His Vs. State of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR650
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that on 19.5.1956 the order was passed by the authority for grant of the land to Mahipat Manilal Desai whose heirs are the petitioners herein, on payment of the occupation price of the land bearing Survey No. 479 and No. 966/2 as old tenure. As per the petitioners, the occupation price was paid after the order dated 19.5.1956. However, as per the order communicated by the Collector dated 10.1.1958, if any of the Inamdars did not deposit the amount of occupation price on or before 30th April, 1956, all lands were to vest with the State Government and, therefore, accordingly as occupation price qua the land in question was not paid, vide Entry No. 3858 dated 19.9.1958, the land was recorded as vested to the State Government together with the other lands. On 15.8.1988, the petitioners herein preferred appeal being Appeal No. 50/1988 before the Dy. Collector against the Entry No. 3859 for treating the land as land vested to the Government....
Tag this Judgment!Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Raiyani and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2606
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Rule. The learned A.G.P. is directed to waive service. The petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today.2. This petition challenges notice dated 17-6-2006 (Annexure-E) whereunder respondent No. 2-Registrar, Co-operative Societies, has in exercise of powers under Section 81(1)(a) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act) called upon the petitioners herein to show cause why the Managing Committee should not be removed and an Administrator appointed for the three defaults stated in the impugned show-cause notice.3. It is an admitted fact that elections for the Managing Committee were declared on 29-5-2006, were held on 22-6-2006 and results declared on 24-6-2006. The newly constituted body came into effect on 5-7-2006.4. Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that each of the petitioners has been elected for the first time and on a bare perusal of the impugned show-cause notice, the so-calle...
Tag this Judgment!Tushar D. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1365
B.J. Shethna, J.LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1360 OF 2004 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5256 OF 20021. This Letters Patent Appeal with other Writ Petitions, being Special Civil Application Nos. 1259 of 2005 (PIL) and 18005 of 2003 (PIL) and other matters were placed before the Hon'ble First Court consisting of Acting Chief Justice Mr. Y. R. Meena, J. and Mr. Anant S. Dave, J. However, Justice Dave made exception, therefore, as per the administrative orders passed by the learned Acting Chief Justice, all these matters were specially assigned to this Court. Accordingly, all the matters were heard by this Court.2. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin N. Oza appearing with learned Advocate Mr. B. P. Gupta for the appellant, learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi appearing with Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Sangeeta Vishen for respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat, and learned Advocate Mr. Devang Nanavati for respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 - Hon'ble Minister for Health a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Purity Flexpack Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2008(223)ELT361(Guj); 2008[9]STR126
ORDER1. The following question has been proposed for the admission of this appeal:Whether or not respondent is entitled for CENVAT credit at the higher rate paid on inputs, for which manufacturer of inputs on his own paid duty at the rate of 24% instead of 16%.?2. While considering the issue as to what extent CENVAT credit can be availed in the accepted facts, the Tribunal has considered as under:The respondents have made a prayer for decision on merits. Accordingly, I have heard the Ld. DR and have gone through the impugned order. The respondents took modvat credit of duty paid by the supplier on inputs and as reflected in the invoices. The revenue's contention is that the supplier should have paid 16% of duty as against 24% paid by them, in which case the respondents would have been entitled only to 16% rate of duty. However, no dispute has been initiated by the revenue at the supplier manufacturer of inputs end. It is a settled law that the duty paid by the manufacturer is eligible ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Mangilal JaIn Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1295
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The applicant-convict has approached this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C.) after being convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of rupees one thousand and after the conviction and sentence being confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 20.6.1997.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Chirag Patel, appearing for the applicant, restricted his argument to avail the benefit of probation under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that, even after conviction of the applicant for serious offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC'), the applicant was entitled to be considered under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the facts that the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the applicant was refunded to the original complainant, that he was only aged 25 at the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaiyalal Nandumal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2694
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri D.D. Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Shri A.Y. Kogje, learned A.G.P., for the respondents. The parties are finally heard.2. Somewhere in the year 1980, the petitioners could secure permission under the hands of the Collector under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 for raising residential construction on the plot in their possession. Even at this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioners had made joint application and had secured joint order in their favour. The plot in dispute was admeasuring 562 meters, but the Collector granted permission to raise one single construction to the tune of 160.60 sq.mts. The petitioners thereafter, made separate applications to the Municipality for sanction of plans, two separate permissions were sought and instead of one joint construction, two separate residential constructions were made. The total area, according to the respondents exceeded by 21.90 metres. After learning about the fact, the Collector...
Tag this Judgment!Parikh Gopalbhai Krishnakant Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2652
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C') to challenge the order dated 11-2-1998 of the learned Special Judge, Vadodara in E.S.T.P. Case No. 24 of 1995, whereby the application of the petitioner to drop the proceedings on the ground of limitation was rejected.2. The original application of the petitioner appears to have been based upon the incorrect premises that, since the offence alleged against the petitioner was required to be tried summarily under the provisions of Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), the maximum punishment that could be awarded to the petitioner was imprisonment of two years, and therefore, the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. applied so as to bring into operation the bar of limitation prescribed therein. The petitioner relied upon the facts that the premises of the petitioner was inspected on 29-4-1992, and after obt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »