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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Udaysinh Chandansinh Thakor and 2 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC406; 2006ACJ2759; AIR2006Guj117; (2006)2GLR1229
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara dated 16.9.2005 in M.A.C.Petition No. 756 of 1996. The M.A.C.Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 12,05,000/- to the respondent No. 1 - claimant. The appellant is challenging the impugned judgment and award to the extent of Rs. 7,05,000/- only. The main ground of challenge in the present appeal is that the inferences drawn and the conclusions arrived at by the M.A.C.Tribunal for awarding the compensation are erroneous, inasmuch as they are based on an incorrect appreciation of the evidence on record, especially the medical evidence, which has persuaded it to come to the conclusion that, looking to the disability suffered by the respondent No. 1- claimant, the compensation of Rs. 12,05,000/- deserves to be awarded.2. To test the veracity of this contention the brief facts giving rise to the claim...
Tapubhai Ravatbhai Kathi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4443
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. The appellants have challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 147 and 148 of the I.P. Code as well as the sentence of imprisonment for life in respect of offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and imprisonment for a period of one year in respect of the offence under Sections 147 and 148, I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default, further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant No. 2 has also challenged his further conviction under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as the sentence of imprisonment for a further period of one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, further imprisonment for a period of three months recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1997, in the present appeal which is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, can be stated as follows:2.1 The incident in question...
Madhuriben Shashikant Joshi Vs. Sarlaben Yasheshchandra Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj113
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioner-plaintiff-appellant is before this Court being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 15th June 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara in Rent Suit No. 515 of 1984, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit premises. The learned Judge was pleased to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2645/- to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent and mesne profit.2. The plaintiff being aggrieved of the same had filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2001, which came to be dismissed on 31st March 2004 by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Vadodara.3. This Civil Revision Application was filed before this Court on 27th August 2004. The revision memo was affirmed on 25th August 2005. The matter is taken up for effective hearing only today, i.e. 6th February 2006. These dates are mentioned with a view to show that the party is not serious/sincere in pursuing th...
Vareli Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR238(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has raised the following four questions at the instance of the assessee arising out of ITA No. 5451/Ahd/1989 :R.A. No. 579/Ahd/1994 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that share issue expenses of Rs. 8,31,384 is capital expenditure and is not business expenditure ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fees paid to the RoC for increasing the share capital of the company is capital expenditure and, therefore, not allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the prospectus report fee of Rs. 3,000 for new issue of shares is capital expenditure and, therefore, not allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amal...
Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors. Vs. Dhaniben R. Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)1GLR680
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners - Union of India, through General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai and others being....Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yesaggrieved by order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (herein-after referred to as CAT) in O.A. No. 274/2002 Smt. Dhaniben R. Parmar v. Union of India and Ors. Vide impugned order dated 12.4.2005 the CAT has set aside the memorandum dated 22.7.2003 passed by the petitioners withdrawing the benefit of grant of compassionate allowance to the respondent, sanctioned vide memorandum dated 19.6.2000. Further, the petitioners have been directed to pay the amount of compassionate allowance in terms of their order dated 19.6.2000 within four months of the receipt of the order of CAT failing which they will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of the period till payment. The CA...
Kiritkumar K. Rawal Vs. District Collector and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR171]; (2006)2GLR1420
Anil R. Dave, J.1. In both these appeals, the appellants, original petitioners, have challenged the validity of a common judgment delivered in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3931 and 3667 of 2004 dated 21st July, 2004. In view of the said fact, at the request of the learned advocates, both the appeals have been heard together.2. The facts giving rise to the said petitions, in a nutshell, are as under:-2.1 The original petitioners were working under Bahucharaji Mataji Temple Trust, respondent No. 2 herein in different capacities like peons and watchmen. Respondent No. 2-Trust wanted to reorganize its activities and, therefore, it retrenched the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, by orders dated 23rd March, 2004 upon payment of retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act'). It was specifically stated in the retrenchment orders that the provisions of the ID Act were not applicable to the Trust...
Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT798(Guj); 2008[10]STR99
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. P.M. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Notice returnable today. Mr. Jitendra Malkan waives service on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage today.2. This petition primarily challenges Show Cause Notices (i) Bearing F. No. V.23/15-31/Dem/OA/2005-06, dated 31-8-2005 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, (ii) Bearing F. No. V.23/3-7/SCN/05-06, dated 29-9-2005 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mehsana and, (iii) Bearing F. No. V.23/3-36/SCN/05-06, dated 21-11-2005 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kalol.3. When the matter came up for hearing on 23-1-2006 the learned Advocate for the petitioners was orally directed by the Court to approach the Commissioner of Central Excise and the matter was adjourned to 30-1-2006. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Commissioner had already made up his mind and was not inclined to gra...
Outdoor Advertising Owners' Association of Ahmedabad and Anr. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj157
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In this group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in preventing the petitioners from exhibiting advertisements on private properties situated within the Municipal Corporation limits of City of Ahmedabad without payment of revised licence fees. In essence what is under challenge is the decision of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to increase the rates of collection of licence fees from the owners of private properties. The petitioners have also challenged decision on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to collect huge amount from the agencies who are inter-mediators between the property owners and companies who are desirous of exhibiting their advertisements under the heading of registration charges. 2. Short facts leading to the present petition are as follows:2.1 In city of Ahmedabad on places of strategic importance, advertisements are being exhibited by various companies of their produces or services. Sites at which these adv...
R. Gandhi Vs. Radhekishen Ramnaresh Mishra and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj115
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. The applicant has approached this Court with the prayer that:Your Lordships may be pleased to transfer the Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 849/ 92, pending at the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad City.The grounds for transfer as set out in the application are that the applicant is a permanent resident of the city of Ahmedabad; that the applicant is residing at Ahmedabad; that it is difficult for him to attend hearing of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Surendranagar; that the Regional Office of opponent No. 3 is also at Ahmedabad; that the witnesses are also residing at Ahmedabad. Besides, it is submitted that the opponents are not to be prejudiced in any manner if the Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 849 of 1992 is transferred to Ahmedabad.It is submitted that opponents No. 1 and 2 are residing at Mumbai, which is comparatively nearer to Ahmedabad than Surendranagar...
Mugat Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. A.C.i.T.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Guj)606; [2007]290ITR282(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. In all these appeals, (though the frame of the questions in Tax Appeal No. 8 of 2004 differs from that of the other appeals) the facts and issues involved are common. Hence, the same are taken up for hearing together, and disposed of by this common judgment. In all the appeals, learned Advocate Mr. S.N.Divetia addressed the Court on behalf of the appellants, Mr. B.B.Naik, learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent.Tax Appeals No. 193 & 194 of 2003.1 Both these Appeals arise out of consolidated order dated 3/8/2002 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench-'C' for Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively. The common dispute involved for both the Assessment Years relates to the disallowance of excise duty liabilities to the tune of Rs.58,75,999/- for the Assessment Year 1986-87 and Rs.44,58,378/- for Assessment Year 1987-88 by invocation of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act).2 Both these app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »