Gujarat Court February 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.
Praveen Rashtrapal, I.R.S. (Retd.) Vs. Chief Officer, Kadi Municipalit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR1809
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. In both these petitions, a common cause has been espoused for the betterment of the service conditions of sewerage cleaners, who are popularly known as Safai Kamdar, in view of the fact that they have to perform their duties in such adverse conditions that these conditions invariably pose danger to their health and some time even result into fatality. According to the petitioners, these workers belong to downtrodden lower strata of the society and they are not able to approach this Court to ventilate their grievances, and therefore, the petitioners have filed these petitions on their behalf as Public Interest Litigation. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2004 is a retired member of the Indian Revenue Service and is a person in public life. So far as Special Civil Application No. 8989 of 2001 is concerned, petitioner No.l is a registered organization addressing the issue of occupational health and safety amongst the workers working in various fac...
Suo Motu Vs. Ahmedabad Muncipal Corpn. and 46 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1129
Akshay H. Mehta, J.Rule. Service of rule is waived by the learned advocates for the respective respondents.1. Ahmedabad is a historical city. It was founded by King Ahmed Shah in or around 1411 AD. Originally the city was confined to area within the fort having different gates, the area which is now known as 'walled city', but with the passage of time it has grown rapidly and during last 20 to 30 years the growth is by leaps and bounds. The original city has now become a small portion of the entire city. The growth of the city has embraced in its fold villages which, not very long ago, had their independent identity and entity. They have now merged into the city and some of them have already become posh areas of the city for quite some time such as Navrangpura, Naranpura, Paldi, etc. They are covered under Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation [AMC] Even during recent past many villages like Memnagar, Thaltej, Vejalpur, Ghatlodiya have been taken into its sweep by the rapid growth and the ci...
Bhoruka Steel Ltd. and anr. Vs. Manish N. Vora and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2437
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Applicants are before this Court seeking relief that, Sthe complaint filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A' hereto and the order passed thereon by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad, be quashed and/or be set aside;.2. Mr. Arun H. Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the present case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in other similar matters being Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 3777, 3778 and 3779 of 1993 decided by this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya, J.) by judgment and order dated 17.12.1994. He submitted that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed against the present applicants and on that short ground, by following the reasonings of this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.12.1994, the present application be allowed and the complaint be quashed.3. Mrs. Manisha L. Shah, the learne...
Valley Velvet P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2008(222)ELT352(Guj); (2006)2GLR1373
H.N. Devani, J.1. Heard Mr. Devan Parikh, the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Malkan for the respondents.2. Rule. Mr. Malkan waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. In view of the fact that the controversy involved in the present petition lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today.3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the communication dated 10th December, 2004 (Annexure SD), whereby the respondent No. 4, Superintendent, Central Excise, Himmatnagar has called upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 73,28,029/- which is due for recovery in the form of duty and penalty from one M/s A. Arti Leathers Pvt. Ltd., which was operating from the petitioners' present factory premises before the petitioners took over the same.4. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing leather cloth. One M/s A. Arti Leathe...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alpesh Bhogilal Dave and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006ACJ2524; (2006)2GLR1362
Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. First Appeal Nos. 335 of 2006, 336 of 2006 and 337 of 2006 have arisen out of the common judgment and award dated 1.08.2005 passed in M.A.C. Petition No. 1561 of 1999, 1562 of 1999 and 1849 of 1999, arising out of the same accident, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Cort No. 5,Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad. By way of the impugned judgment and award, the M.A.C.Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 77,900/- in M.A.C.P. No. 1561 of 1999, Rs. 1,21,440/- in M.A.C.P.No.1562 of 1999 and Rs. 99,740/- in M.A.C.P.No.1849 of 1999, to be paid by the opponents therein jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application.2. The appellant in all the three Appeals is the Insurance Company, who was opponent No. 2 in all the three claim petitions, which arose out of the same accident. Briefly stated the facts which emerge from the record are that on 21.5.1995 at about 3.00 P.M. the victim of M.A.C.Petition No. 156...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakhuben Punabhai Vaghari and 5 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2253
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Through this common judgment, we propose to dispose of five First Appeals, namely, First Appeal Nos. 338, 339, 340, 341 and 342 of 2006, all of which have been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the common judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 20.9.2005, in M.A.C.P.Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 and 946 of 1998. Since these appeals, arise out of the same accident, the factual matrix is the same in all the cases.2. It is stated that the accident took place on 19.5.1998 at about 1.30 P.M. A truck No. GJ-4U-9286 was being driven by its driver on the road going from Vataman Cross Road to Dholer. As per the case of the claimants, on the aforesaid date all the deceased persons, namely, Ramubhai Punabhai, Savaben Ramubhai, minor Tiniben, Rameshbhai Chaturbhai and minor Vijaykumar Rameshbhai, were going alongwith their goods in the aforesaid truck from Vataman Cross Road to their village Buranpur. Due to the rash a...
Dharamshibhai Virjibhai Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj177
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 25.5.1996 confirmed by the Deputy Secretary, Information & Broadcasting Department, State of Gujarat by its order dated 19.9.1996 in cancelling the Video Cinema licence of the petitioner, on the ground that there is a breach of Rule-11 of the Gujarat Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by Video) Rules; 1984 and Condition No. 4 of the Licence as the petitioner found to be running Video Cinema in the premises without N.A. permission.2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he is carrying on the business of running Video Cinema Theatre in the name of Valam Video Cinema at Varachha Road, Surat and the Video Cinema licence was granted in his favour on 3.12.1993 and subsequently, the licence was renewed on two occasions for a period of 6 mont...
Shivnagar Co-operative Hosg. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and 4 o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1174
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner Shivnagar Co-operative Housing Society has challenged an order dated 14-05-2004 passed by the Chief Officer, Halol Nagarpalika. The case has longish history. Recording only the relevant events, it would appear that in the petitioner-society there are four plots 48, 49, 50 and 51 held by the respondents No. 4 and 5 herein. It is not in dispute that a school has been constructed by the said respondents in the plots owned by them. Though the assertion of the petitioner is that such construction is situated in all four plots, respondents No. 4 and 5 contended that school building is situated only in plot No. 48 and 49 whereas on plot No. 50 and 51, their residential house is existing.1.1 The case of the petitioner is that society is a Co-operative Housing Society and SNA Permission was granted by Collector with a condition that only residential unit can be constructed on the land in the society, despite which the respondents No. 4 ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Jamabhai Ramabhai Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2392
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. The acquittal of the Respondent (the accused for short) of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1985 in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1985 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant Appeal which is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for short by the Appellant - the State of Gujarat.2. The facts emerging from the record of the case and more particularly as disclosed in the FIR and unfolded during the trial are as under:2.1 Deceased Ahmadmiya Rasulmiya (the deceased for short) had two fields in the village Sojali. In one field he constructed a hut and was residing there. His another field was know as SKothiwala in which the millet crop was standing on the date of the incident. On the Eastern side of the said field, there was the field of the accused - Jamabhai Ramabhai and there was a hed...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Guj)319; [2006]286ITR66(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has raised the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax:1. SWhether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding in view of Section 49(1)(iii)(e) capital gain should be computed by taking the cost in the hands of the previous owner namely, KPPL ?2. SWhether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that inspite of Section 46(2) capital gains chargeable to tax had not arisen in this case in view of fact that benefit of Section 47(v) would be available to the assessee?2. The Assessment Year is 1988-89 and the relevant previous year is Financial Year ended on 31st March, 1988.3. The assessee, a Private Limited Company, received assets valued at Rs. 93,24,000/- from one Aravalli Investments Private Limited (Aravalli) on voluntary liquidation of Aravalli. The Assessing Officer invoked Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »