Gujarat Court October 2007 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.
Girishbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1820
M.D. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd October, 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 9 of 1991 whereby the. appellant-accused Girishbhai Ishwarbhai Patel was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i), (ii) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal as emerging from the record of the case can be summarized as under:The complainant-Nandkishore Natvarlal Shukla who is res...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parle Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: [2008]307ITR87(Guj)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. Following question is proposed for admission in this appeal.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting disallowance made under Section 40A(3) of the Act holding the same to be covered by Rule 6DD, for an amount of Rs. 4,75,000?3. While confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Tribunal has observed in paragraph 5 as under:We have heard rival submissions and perused material available on record. As facts are similar in all the cases, it has not been disputed that village Vanivali does not have banking facility and consequently, neither the assessee nor supplier has any banking accounts, payments are otherwise held to be genuine. In our considered view, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in holding that payments made by the assessee is covered by exceptional circumstances as p...
Abhay Harinandan Oza Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: II(2008)DMC744; (2008)2GLR1178
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Shri J. B. Pardiwala, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri P. D. Bhate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.2. The appellant-orig. convict (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has preferred present appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2nd September, 2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 488 of 2002 (Old No. 171 of 2001), whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in defualt to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and so far as the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years ...
Ganpatbhai Hemaji and ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj32; (2008)1GLR457
M.S. Shah, J.1. All these petitions challenge the eviction notices dated 11-12-2006 issued by the respondent -- Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and also pray for a direction to the Corporation to regularize the petitioners' dwellings on the land known as Siddhi Camp in Maninagar, Ahmedabad. The petitioners have also prayed for the alternative relief of directing the Corporation to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners.2. Although the petitioners, 49 in number, have prayed for the same relief and the broad facts of the case are similar, the petitioners may be divided into two categories:(1) Seven petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 8969 of 2007 were initially residing in the area called Uttamnagar in Ahmedabad. The petitioners' dwellings were situated on the parcel of land which was required by the respondent. Corporation for laying down the drainage line and therefore, the petitioners were given alternative accommodation on a portion of land being Final Plot No....
Revashankar and Co. Now Revashankar Gems Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR918
D.H. Waghela, J.1. By this petition invoking Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ setting aside orders dated 29-3-2005 of the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Zone II, Vadodara, whereby market value of the properties in question were determined and stamp duty along with penalty was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. Similar orders were made in total six cases and stamp duty of varying amounts were sought to be imposed by the impugned orders, all of which were made under the provisions of Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner firm had purchased from different owners several pieces and parcels of land. The petitioner made an application on 22-1-1993 to the authorities concerned for adjudicating due stamp duty and by order dated 28-9-1993 due stamp duty was determined by order of the Collector and Additi...
State of Gujarat thr' Executive Engineer Vs. Spun Pipe and Constructio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj29; 2008(1)ARBLR624(Gujarat); (2008)1GLR525
ORDERK.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara below an application Exh. 17 in Misc. Application (Arbitration) No. 148 of 2002 on 6 10-2005, whereby further objections filed by the petitioner vide Exh. 16 were ordered 10 be rejected and ordered to be filed.2. It is the ease of the petitioner that the State of Gujarat invited the tenders pertaining to the work of providing and connecting the Hume Steel Pipes. An agreement between the parties was entered into on 14-7-1992. The work order was issued to the present respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was required to complete the work within the prescribed time period. Because of the failure on the part of the respondent No. 1 90% work was completed and 10% work was to be completed in February, 1995. The respondent No. 1 carried out work of Rs. 99,98,054/- and the tender cost was fixed at Rs....
Raisangbhai Somajibhai Damor and anr. Vs. G.K. Nisarata, Nayab Mamlatd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1377
C.K. Buch, J.1. The appellant-original convicts have preferred present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20th February, 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Summary Case No. 10 of 1998 (E.C.A.), whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 12AA of the of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for breach of Section 3 of the Act, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of making payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. The legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge has been assailed on various grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. However, Shri Vijal Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has concentrated his a...
State of Gujarat Vs. Mahmad Sarif Umar Gajal Muslim
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ644
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. The present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st December, 1994, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umargam, in Criminal Case No. 430 of 1990, whereby the accused (original respondent) has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 297, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 112, 116 and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Leave to Appeal was granted and the Appeal was admitted by this Court on 7th August, 3. 1996. In the facts and circumstance of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Appeal is being finally heard and disposed of today.3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23rd December, 1989, the accused Mahmad Sharif Gajal himself went to Umargam Police Station and lodged a complaint to the effect that at about 19:45 hrs., he was driving his tempo bearing registration No. GQO-872 on ...
Jitendrasinh K. Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR595
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 31/12/1990 dismissing the petitioner from services on the ground of defiance and disobeying the order of his superiors for performing internal securities at Bihar on 15/4/1989, on the ground that the impugned order is suffering from patent illegality and the same could not have been passed.2. Brief facts deserves to be set out in order to appreciate the controversy as under.The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in State Reserve Police Force in the year 1981. The petitioner was required to proceed to Bihar for discharging his duties in respect of internal securities in Bihar. The petitioner was informed by his superiors on 14/4/1989 that he and others will have to proceed for discharging their duties in Bihar as their terms of attachment had been over. The said orders were repeated in the morning parade of 7.00 'O' clock and the Rear Commander had ordered them to...
indumatiben Indravadan Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1023
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner has invoked Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside order dated 22-12-2005 of the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, whereby, in exercise of the powers under Rule 11 of the Gujarat Stamps Supply and Sales Rules, 1987, (for short 'the Rules'), licence of the petitioner was cancelled in public interest. That order followed show-cause notice dated 21-10-2005 wherein 31 serious defaults on the part of the petitioner were mentioned as 'innumerable errors and anomalies' amounting to violation of Rules 14(1)(2)(3), 16 and 21 of the Rules. On that basis, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why her licence should not be cancelled for violation of the Rules and the conditions subject to which the licence was issued to the petitioner under the aforesaid Rules.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the licence for selling stamps was issued to her since the year 1988, and after being renewed from time ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »