Gujarat Court February 2006 Judgments
Mohammed Salim Mohammed Yunus Shaikh Vs. Kamudchandra Keshavlal Patel ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1399
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. This is an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 4 - Mr. VC Barot, Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad amounts to contempt of Court and, therefore, contempt proceedings be initiated against the said learned Judge.2. The petitioner herein is defendant No. 3 in HRP Suit No. 453 of 1990 which is filed by respondent No. 1 against the present petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. The suit is filed by respondent No. 1 for possession of the suit premises on various grounds including sub-letting, non-user and alternative accommodation acquired by the tenant. It appears that the present petitioner filed Special Civil Application Nos. 5597 to 5599 of 2005 challenging interlocutory orders passed by the Small Causes Court in the abovesaid suit. A learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order on 12.5.2005 :-Rule returnable on 6.7.2005.In the meantime, proceedings before the t...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Bhagwan Nayak Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR796
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Pramod Bhagwan Nayak, petitioner original detenu, has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the order dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, Surat, respondent No. 2 herein. The petition was filed before this Court on 13-10-2005. When the matter was placed for hearing on 21-10-2005, this Court has issued rule. On behalf of the respondents Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned A.G.P., appears. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. Mr. Amrish Pandya, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of Ms. Krishna U. Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 23-8-2005 in which the authority has passed order under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.A.S.A. Act'). He has also invited my attention to the order of committal dated 23-10-2005 whereby the petitioner has been sent to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirshinhbhai Karsanbhai Barad President and anr. Vs. Kanjibhai Parbar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1190
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. This application is filed by Shri Dhirsinhbhai Karsanbhai Barad as the President of Shri Bhagvanbhai Bhabhabhai Smarak Trust. The Trust is also joined as applicant No. 2. The applicants have prayed in paragraph No. 14 A) that, This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2005 from the District Court, Junagadh, to peruse it and examine the same and after hearing the parties, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 6th September, 2005 passed by the District Court, Junagadh in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2005.2. Learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh by his judgment and order dated 6th September 2005 is pleased to allow the application ( Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2005) and order transfer of the Trust Suit No. 1 of 2005 pending before the District Court Junagadh to 2nd Fast Track Court, Junagadh at Veraval, sitting at Una.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Girnar Food and Beverage P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: [2008]306ITR23(Guj)
1. The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following identically worded three questions in each of these appeals:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting demand raised by the Income-tax Officer (TDS), Valsad, as per order under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of works contract of printed materials?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting interest demand raised by the Income-tax Officer (TDS), Valsad, as per order under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(c) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in considering supply of printing and packaging materials as a contract for sale and not a services/works contract?2. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing Counsel for the appellant. He has assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal dated November 30, 2004, which is consolidated for two years, on the principal ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Harshad Shah and Co. Vs. Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: [2006]72SCL245(Guj)
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. This OJ Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay caused in preferring the restoration application in Company Petition No. 91 of 1999, which was dismissed for default on 12.04.2001.Order dated 12.04.2001 is reproduced which depicts the approach of the learned counsel for the petitioner a the relevant time:The matter was listed yesterday on Board. It was mentioned in the morning that it may be kept at 2.15 PM yesterday. At 2.15 PM it was mentioned that it is not convenient for Mr. Oza, learned advocate to attend the matter as he was busy in some other court. The matter is kept today with the specific understanding that it will be proceeded with.Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate is not present. Hence dismissed for default. Rule is discharged.From the facts recorded in order, it is clear that non-appearance of the learned advocate was not an inadvertent lapse on the part of the learned advocate. The learned advocate had three opportuni...
Tag this Judgment!Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. Sta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1432
ORDER IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Nirma Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Guj)198; [2006]283ITR402(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following two substantial questions of law have been formulated at the time of admission:1. What is the effect of dismissal of Tax Appeal by the High Court holding that no substantial question of law arises ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that while computing deduction Under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, interest received from trade debtors towards late payment of sales consideration is required to be excluded from the profits of the industrial undertaking as the same cannot be stated to have been derived from the business of the industrial undertaking ?2. The Assessment Year is 1992-93 and the relevant previous year is Financial Year 1991-92. The assessee, a limited company, claimed deduction under Section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in relation to two units - Vatva Unit and Mandali Unit. The Assessing Officer held while computing the amount allowabl...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnaben Jayantilal Patel Vs. District Primary Education Officer and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2241
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who were serving as Primary Teachers under the respondents. Since the issue involved for determination in all three petitions is similar, they are being decided by a common judgment.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these petitions are detailed herein-below.2.1 In Special Civil Application No. 9958 of 1993,the petitioner was serving at Satharia Primary School,Taluka Meghraj and she was transferred to Rayan-no-mal Primary School, Taluka Modasa at her own request, on the ground as stated by her, that there was an excess of teachers at Satharia Primary School. The transfer was effected by order dated 17.7.1993 of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner, in pursuance of this order, moved to the new place of transfer alongwith her family and household articles. However, within less than a month the respondent No. 1, cancelled the earlier order vide his order dated 12.8.1993. Being aggrieved by this ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kantilal Ratilal Dhakan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1079; (2006)IIILLJ295Guj
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. A short, but pertinent, issue is involved for determination in the present writ petition, filed by the Union of India (petitioner). The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court at Junagadh in Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Application No. 73 of 1998 dated 13.4.1998, whereby, the Labour Court has stayed the proposed order of transfer of the respondent from Visavadar to any other Post Office.2. The impugned order dated 13.4.1998 passed by the Labour Court is an ad interim order, the operation of which has already been stayed by this court on 2.11.1998.3. Shri Y.N. Ravani, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that earlier vide order dated 14.5.1997 the respondent, who was working as Sub Post Master (UNA) was transferred from Visavadar. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT) vide O.A. Nos. 305 of 1997 and 490 of 1997, which gr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.H. Parabia (Transport) (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR361(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the CIT :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the AO even though the assessee is engaged in the contract business of material handling and is a private limited company, for not showing the amount of work uncertified in the credit side of the P&L; a/c and thereby not furnishing accurate particulars of its income in the original return of income filed by it and assessee filed revised return only when it was pointed out by the AO, though under law the assessee was duty-bound to do that and to pay tax accordingly 2. Heard Mr. T.U. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for applicant-Revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee.3. The assessment year is 1990-91 and the relevant accounting period is the financia...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »