Gujarat Court December 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.
Shantaben Chandubhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1249
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have brought under challenge an order dated 21-7-1992 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) whereby the said authority i.e. respondent No. 1 set aside the order dated 23-6-1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T.2. On perusal of the said order, it becomes clear that the respondent No. 1 i.e. Authority, after hearing the applicant (i.e. present respondent No. 4) and present petitioners, inter alia, recorded that, (a) the said order dated 23-6-1989 is bad in law also because heirs of the land owner i.e. Shankarlal Nathubhai Tarvadi were not issued any notice and the proceedings were carried on in absence of heirs of the land owner. (b) The proceedings could not have been undertaken in exercise of powers under Section 32P(ii)(C) and in the facts of the case the said provisions were not attracted or applicable.3. In view of aforesaid findings respondent No. 1, came to the conclusion that the order d...
Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Raj Amarsinh Fulsinh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)220
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of petitioner in both the matters.2. The draft amendment is placed on record in both the matters explaining the delay in filing both the petitions challenging the awards in question.3. Accordingly, draft amendment is allowed with a direction to the petitioner to carry out the same within a period of two week from today. Accordingly, delay in filing both the petitions are condoned int the interest of justice.4. It is necessary to note that in Special Civil Application No. 27731 of 2007, the award passed by Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 470 of 1990 dated 21st September 2003 is challenged by petitioner being a State Authority after a period of four years. In Special Civil Application No. 27731 of 2007, the name of respondent - workman is Raj Amarsinh Fulsinh. In Special Civil Application No. 27732 of 2007, the name of respondent - workman is Manilal Ratanji Vasava, where, Labour Court has dec...
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prithviraj Bhoorchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: [2009]310ITR88(Guj); [2009]176TAXMAN156(Guj)
Anil R. Dave, J.1. In this appeal, the following substantial question of law had been framed by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal:Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing to allow deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act2. We have heard learned advocate Shri Bharat Naik appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Shri M.J. Shah appearing for the respondent.3. The aforestated question, which has been involved in this appeal, is no more res integra as it has been already decided in the case of the assessee himself that the Tribunal was right in law and on fact in directing the department to allow deduction under the provisions of Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, as more than twenty persons were working under control of the assessee in the industrial undertaking of the assessee.Looking to the law laid down in the case of CIT v. Prithviraj Bhoorchand : [2006]280ITR94(Guj) , we answer the question in the affirmative i.e., in ...
Hawa Controls Vs. O.L. of Tirupati Foundry Pvt. Ltd. and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]172CompCas528(Guj); [2008]87SCL106(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant, namely, M/s. Hawa Controls has taken out this Judge's Summons seeking declaration from this Court that the applicant is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of the property bearing Nos. 703, 704, 709 and 710, Marble Arch, Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390 007 and that the said transaction does not amount to fraudulent transaction or fraudulent preference as envisaged under the provisions of Sections 531 and 531A of the Companies Act, 1956 as alleged or otherwise. The applicant has also prayed for the declaration that the said transaction is the bonafide transaction and is not void under Section 536 (2) of the Act. The applicant has further prayed for the direction to the Official Liquidator not to take possession forcibly or otherwise of the premises in question as it does not belong to the Company in liquidation. 2. An affidavit is filed by one Mr. Asad Fazlurrehman Kagdi in support of the Judge's Summons.this Court has issued notice on 28.1...
Ratanben I. Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)128
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Dabhi, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Munshaw for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was appointed as a primary teacher in the school run by the District Panchayat, Vadodara since 1974. On 25.04.1995, FIR was filed against the petitioner and two other persons for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 206 & 114 of the IPC pertaining to the cruelty etc. to the wife of the son of the petitioner. 4. On 13.08.1999, the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in the said case, convicted the petitioner with the Simple Imprisonment of 2 years. The petitioner carried the matter before this Court and on 31.08.1999, in Criminal Appeal No. 895/99, this Court admitted the appeal and stayed the conviction and the petitioner has been released on bail. It appears that in t...
D.L. Sharma Vs. D.S. Shukla, and or His Succesor in Office and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)310; (2008)2GLR1064
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the impugned orders dated 29.09.1999 passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, ONGC, Mumbai, order dated 13.07.2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (West Zone) and order dated 14.02.2001 passed by the Inspector General (South and Western Zone) as a result whereof, the petitioner was reduced to the lowest scale of Constable for a period of 5 years with effect from the date of his rejoining duty on reinstatement and it was ordered that he would not earn any increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments in pay and also to treat the intervening period of the petitioner from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement to service as DIES NON under the provisions of Rule 49-A of the CISF Rules, 1969 and not to pay any pay and allowances for the said period to the petitione...
Apollo Tyres Limited Vs. Commission of Labour and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR9]; (2008)IILLJ184Guj
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Kiran C. Raval for the petitioner.2. Looking to the prayer made by the petitioner in para 20-(i) of the petition, the petitioner is praying to quash and set aside the impugned order of Reference dated June 22, 2007 at annexure E and direct the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara not to continue adjudication of the Reference being Ref.(IT) No. 84/2007 pursuant to impugned order at annexure E. Petitioner is also praying to stay further adjudication proceedings of said reference pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.3. Learned advocate Raval has raised various contentions before this Court while challenging the aforesaid order of reference. He submitted that this being an individual dispute converted to an industrial dispute, therefore, order of reference is bad. He also submitted that the union which is not representing substantial number of workmen has raised a dispute only in respec...
H.H. Acharya Shri Devendraprasadji Kelavani and anr. Vs. Prof. H.C. Da ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)65
Jayant Patel, J.1. With the consent of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.2. The short facts of the case appears to be that the services of the respondent No. 1 was terminated without prior approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University and the said decision of termination was challenged before the Tribunal by the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal initially had granted stay against termination. However, there is no dispute between the petitioners herein and the respondent No. 1 on the aspects of joining of the duty. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 1 was not permitted to join the duty or in any case, the respondent No. 1 did not work pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately, after hearing both the sides, declared the termination illegal and directed for reinstatement with full backwages and the said order of the Tribunal dated 07.02.2007 is under challenge in the present petition.3. This ...
National Textile Coporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabadni Samasta Modh Champane ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1048
D.N. Patel, J.1. This Appeal from Order has been preferred by original defendant No. 2 (lessee of a perpetual lease) against the order dated 15th October,2007 below Notice of Motion Application Exh-52 in Regular Civil Suit No. 5110 of 1992 passed by City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, whereby though transfer of suit property is allowed by Clause 6 of perpetual and permanent lease, defendant No. 2 has been directed not to transfer the suit property to third party till final disposal of the Suit, filed mainly for the reason that rent is not paid. In fact, rent is already deposited by appellant before Trial Court, with interest and cost. Thus, Civil Suit is a suit for forfeiture for non-payment of rent. 2. Facts of the case:2.1 It appears from the facts of the case that a lease deed has been entered into between the original plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 4th February,1955, for the suit property, which is assignable, perpetual and permanent lease and the amount of rent fixed was Rs. 9,601/-....
Shantaba Kanaji Vaghela Vs. District Development Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj51; 2008GLH(1)270
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally today.2. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to quash and set aside the order dated 17.5.2007, passed by the respondent No. 1, placing the petitioner under suspension under the provisions of Section 59(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1993 ('the Act' for short) and, further, to quash and set aside the order dated 27.9.2007, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal of the petitioner, challenging the order dated 17.5.2007, has been dismissed.3. The admitted facts of the case, whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »