Gujarat Court September 2006 Judgments
R.K. Shelat Registrar Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR135
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the Learned Advocate, Mr. I.S. Supehia, on behalf of petitioner.2. Rule. Learned A.G.P., Mr. Dabhi, waives the service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.3. The brief facts of the present petition are that the petitioner retired as Assistant Registrar on attaining age of superannuation on 30th October 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post of Registrar in Gujarat Public Work Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad through Chairman of the Tribunal. The petitioner was given appointment for the period of 1 Year on contractual basis as per the post and pay scale sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat. On 1st October 2004, the petitioner took over as Registrar of the Tribunal for the period of 1 Year up to 30 September 2005. In August 2005, Legal Department reappointed the petitioner on the sanctioned post of Registrar w.e.f. 1st October 2005 to 30th September 2006 by Resolution dated 2nd August 2005. On 19th October 20...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantibhai Mafatbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Dilipbhai Becharbhai Patel an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj136
ORDERP.B. Majmudar, J.1. The appellants herein are the original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 of Special Civil Suit No. 41 /2006, which is filed by the plaintiff against them as well as against respondent No. 2 Vikrambhai Chimanbhai Patel for specific performance of the suit agreement as well for revocation of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4.2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 is the owner of the property situated at Dascrol taluka of Ahmedabad district, bearing survey No. 280, admeasuring 5868 sq. mtrs. Defendant No. 1 had agreed to sale the aforesaid land and for that an agreement to sale was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 4.50 lacs and said agreement to sale was executed on 22nd January, 2004, which was ultimately notarized on 30th April, 2004. As per the said agreement, the sale deed was to he executed within 36 months and at the time of executing said document, the plaintiff had paid R...
Tag this Judgment!Kankuben J. Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj16
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are, that the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 4 Acre 23 Gunthas bearing Survey No. 584/2 at village Akrund, Taluka Bayad, Dist. Sabarkantha vide Registered Sale Deed dated 05.07.1985, which was an agricultural land and the petitioner had purchased the land from one Vanand Sakrabhai Punjabhai. The entry was also mutated in the revenue record based on the Sale Deed. However, the proceedings came to be initiated under Section 84(C) under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Mamlatdar & ALT, on the ground that it is a purchase of the land by non-agriculturist and the transaction is between the agriculturist and non-agriculturist. The proceedings were initially dropped as per order dated 06.07.1987 but thereafter in appeal, it was remanded. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT found that the father of the petitioner though agriculturist, was surviving and therefore, the petitioner ha...
Tag this Judgment!Shreeji Concast Ltd. Vs. Shreeji Oxygen P. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas717(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant, original respondent-company, has filed this application praying for recalling and reviewing the order dated August 25, 2005, passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 66 of 2002 and for restoration of the said winding up petition. Since the winding up order was passed on August 25, 2005, and the present application was filed on April 26, 2006, the applicant has also prayed for condonation of delay in filing this application.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are as under:3. That the original petitioning creditor, i.e., Shreeji Oxygen P. Ltd., opponent No. 1 herein, has filed Company Petition No. 66 of 2002 for winding up of the present applicant-company under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, and pursuant to filing of the said petition, this Court passed an order on August 25, 2005, whereby the present applicant-company was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as th...
Tag this Judgment!Transport Manager and anr. Vs. Maheshwarsinh Karansinh Jadhav
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR659
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mehta, for Nanavati & Nanavati on behalf of the petitioners.2. According to petitioners, the respondent was working as a daily wager with the petitioners from 1.7.1995 and his service was regularized w.e.f. 1.7.2000 in the post of driver in the Traffic Department. On 30.4.2005, when respondent visited his residence, he met with an accident and lost his 100% eyesight. Due to this, respondent has not reported for duty or not produced any fitness certificate upto 30.4.2006. The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1995). The petitioners filed reply before the Commissioner on 28.3.2006. The Commissioner, after hearing both the sides, passed an order on 23.5.2006 in Case No. 202 of 2006, wherein, the Commissioner directed to the petitioners under Section 47 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhashbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ320
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Appellant ('the accused' for short) and another accused, Sajanben Mohanbhai Gohil, were charged and tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 4th Fast Track Court, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2002 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) on the accusation that they inflicted mental and physical cruelty to deceased Nitaben and abetted her to commit suicide. At the end of the trial, as the accused was found guilty of the offences with which he was charged, he was convicted vide judgment and order dated 19.4.2006 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d., RI for two months for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and RI for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- i.d., RI for three months for commission of the offence punishable under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Family Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Guj)168; [2008]298ITR437(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SA, in the matter of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1520 & 1521/Ahd/90 relating to Assessment Years 1985-86 and 1986-87, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short) for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest paid to the beneficiaries was the income of the applicant-Trust and the applicant-Trust was not entitled to a deduction of the same2. The short facts giving rise to the present matter are that during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee-Trust had credited an amount of Rs. 44,030/- on account of interest to the account of the beneficiaries and claimed deduction thereof. He called for the explanation and after rejecting the same, added the said amount of Rs. 44,030/- to the income of the Trus...
Tag this Judgment!Lubi Electricals Ltd. Vs. A.T. Painter
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ122Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.M. Patel for petitioners, Mr. Sunit Shah, learned Govt. Pleader for the State Authority. Learned Advocates Mr. Mukul Sinha as well as Mr. T.R. Mishra for respective Union.2. By filing Special Civil Application No. 150 of 2006, 151 of 2006 and 152 of 2006, petitioners namely Lubi Electricals Ltd., Ahmedabad, Lubi Submersible Pump Ltd. And AP Motors (Hereinafter referred to as Sthe Management for short) have challenged the judgment given by the Officer appointed under the Minimum Wages Act and Judge, Labour Court No. 14 Ahmedabad dated 19.12.2005 in Minimum Wages Application No. 51/98, 52/98 and 53 of 1998 which were filed by the applicant Government Labour Officer under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Under the impugned judgment, the labour court and the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has partly allowed said applications and directed the establishment to pay minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: [2008]306ITR25(Guj)
1. The following questions are proposed for admission in these appeals:Tax Appeals Nos. 494 and 497 of 2006:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act being consequence of order under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at even though the penalty proceedings are separate proceedings?Tax Appeals Nos:(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) and 201(1A) read with Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in considering supply of printing and packaging materials as a contract for sale and not a service/works contract?(c) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on the issu...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottambhai Mulajibhai Hadiyal Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1117
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The applicant-original accused is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st January 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadhwan City in Criminal Case No. 48 of 2000 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was pleased to convict the petitioner-accused for breach of Rule 32(e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and under Section 7(2) and 7(5) under Section 16 of the Act. The learned JMFC was pleased to award 3 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo 15 days of simple imprisonment. The learned JMFC was also pleased to pass a similar order for violation of Rule 32(f).2. The petitioner-accused being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order preferred criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Surendranagar. The same was dismissed by judgment and order dated 3rd August...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »