Gujarat Court August 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.
Dipakbhai Manilal Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat Thro. Secretary ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj1; (2007)2GLR1297
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and with the consent of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is further heard today. 2. The only question, which arise for consideration of this Court is whether the action of the Mamlatdar denying entry of a registered document for lis pendens is legal and valid or not3. The short facts of the case are that as per the petitioners, they have filed Special Civil Suit No. 209/05 in the Court of learned Civil Judge(SD), Ahmedabad, for the specific performance of the contract and as per the petitioners, the said suit is pending and therefore, the notice of lis pendens was got registered by the petitioners as per the document(Annexure-B), which has been registered vide registration No. 5302 dated 20th June, 2006, of the Joint Sub-Registrar, SRO, Ahmedabad-2, Vadaj. After the document was registered, the petitioners submitted application to the Mamlatdar, Dascroi for ...
Textiles Labour Association Vs. Padmaben Manilal Parmar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR527
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Textiles Labour Association and learned advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk appearing on behalf of the respondent - workman.2. The petitioner - Textiles Labour Association has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.1048 of 1985 dated 31st August 1996. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed the reference granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 70% back wages of interim period. This Court, while issuing rule, has granted interim relief against the implementation of the award subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated 18th March 1997. From the record of the petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner by one Mahendrakumar A. Maniar, office bearer of petitioner Association, to bring on record the certain events and facts which have occurred during the pendency of petition. There ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Tube Well Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR301(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. It is most unfortunate that the Tribunal has no control over its subordinates, who refer the papers to the High Court for answering the question. It is expected of the Tribunal that it would not leave the administrative work or ministerial work in the hands of some johnnies, who do not understand importance of the work and do not also know as to how they should deal with the High Court.2. In the present matter, reference has been made by the Tribunal on certain questions along with reference papers, photostat copy of the order passed by the Tribunal is also annexed as Annex. 'C' A perusal of the said order would indicate that it is illegible and things cannot be read conveniently. After putting an extra effort and strain on the eyes, we were required to go through the order. We ask the High Court Registry to send complete papers to the Vice President, Tribunal so that he can go through the reference papers and return the same back to this Court, as this Court is a Court...
Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1725
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. This matter was heard in the first half. The arguments were not over, it was heard in the second half. The dictation of order was to take some time, hence it was kept at the bottom of the Board. After the other matters were over, the Court has taken up the matter for dictation of the judgment.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 11473 of 2006 too has approached this Court through her Power of Attorney Holder. She is the owner of land bearing Block No. 160 of Village Popda, Taluka Ghoriyasi, District Surat. The petitioner in this petition has similar grievance as that of petitioner in SCA No. 11162 of 2006 that in the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner one electric tower/pylon is to be erected. The petitioner through her Power of Attorney submitted her written objections on 8th May 2006. The impugned notice (Annexure 'A' to this petition) was issued on 9th May 2006. Respondent No. 2 replied to the Power of Attorney Holder of the petit...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat State Forest Development Corpor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR28(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has made this reference on the following questions for opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the additional liability of Rs. 2,71,855 on account of royalty pertaining to asst. yRs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 was an allowable deduction in asst. yr. 1985-86, when the liability neither pertains to nor it was created or arose in the accounting period pertaining to the said assessment year ?2. From the very question, it would clearly appear that the payment of royalty in the sum of Rs. 2,71,855 was pertaining to asst. yr. 1985-86. The ITO observed that the assessee would not be entitled to seek any benefit flowing from Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961 as the liability was not in relation to the asst. yr. 1985-86, but, pertained to the asst. yRs. 1981-82 and 1982-83. He, accordingly, disallowed the said payment of royalty. Being a...
Kholwadwala Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR475(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has made this reference for its answer by the High Court on the following question:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding partially the penalty order passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 19612. Shri R.K. Patel, learned Counsel for the assessee and Shri B. B. Naik, learned Counsel for the Revenue are heard. Shri Patel submitted that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no penalty could be levied against the interests of the present assessee especially in view of the fact that they had filed the return voluntarily and revised the same after the penalty was imposed3. On the other hand, Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had received almost about 32751 metres of man-made fabric, processed the same, allowed its exit without paying the excise and without referring to the c...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd. Vs. Pandya Prahladbhai Manilal and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1306
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the appellant, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Mehsana by resorting to Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. Since common points of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, with the consent of parties, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. By filing these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition References No. 3134 of 2003 to No. 3139 of 2003. The learned Judge of the Reference Court treated L.A.R. No. 3138/03 as the main case and common evidence is lead in the aforesaid References. 3. On behalf of the ONGC, certain agricultural lands of the claimants were temporarily acquired for its project. Somewhere in 1993, the General Manager of ONGC, Mehsana Project sent a proposal to the Government for acquisition of the lands in question for a temporary period under Section 35 of the Land Ac...
Cit Vs. Suresh AmIn Family Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Guj)577; [2007]288ITR101(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. The judgment of the court was delivered by Mrs. Mona Bhatt, learned Counsel for the revenue. Mr. Manish J. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee who has engaged in a profession of pathological laboratory could be said to be carrying on a business as an industrial undertaking, which produced an article or thing and was thus entitled to investment allowance under Section 32-A of the Act on the new machinery installed in his clinic ?3. Learned counsel for the revenue, after taking us through Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as applicable), submitted that the work done in a pathological laboratory cannot be Put at par to an industrial undertaking, and as there is no end product in the pathological examination of the material supplied, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›