Gujarat Court July 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.
Patel Parshottambhai Bhagwanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2259
M.D. Shah, J.1. By way of Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioner from jail despite having already undergone the maximum sentence awarded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar by common judgment and order dated 30-9-2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1999 filed by the petitioner as also in Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2001 preferred by the complainant produced at Annexure 'B' to the petition and the common order of even date in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002 filed by the petitioner and Criminal Revision Application No. 19 of 2002 preferred by the complainant produced at Annexure 'C' to the petition. The petitioner has also sought to free him from jail custody.2. The facts leading to the institution of Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003 are that the petitioner had business relations with one Satishchandra Chhotalal Shah, and accordingly, he had bought two truck-...
Laxmanbhai K. Chokshi Vs. Competent Authority and Additional Collector ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2231
R.M. Doshit, J.1. The petitioner, holder of the land Survey No. 466-A admeasuring 2428 sq.mts. situated at Rakhial, challenges the judgment and order dated 13th September, 1991, passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in Appeal No. Ahmedabad 212 of 1990.2. On introduction of the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner filed declaration of his holding under Section 6 of the Act. According to the statement made in Form No. 1, filed under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner owned two pieces of land, viz. One at Rakhial bearing Survey No. 466-A admeasuring 2428 sq.mts., and another at Kalupur bearing Survey No. 2069/6 admeasuring 42 sq. yards. Both the lands were constructed. The said declaration submitted by the petitioner was processed by the competent authority, appointed under the Act. Before the competent authority the petitioner submitted that out of the land Survey No. 466/A the area admeasuring 482 sq. mts. was under acquisition un...
Subhashbhai Bhanabhai Patel and 3 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR957]; (2007)3GLR2588; (2008)ILLJ1025Guj
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Challenge in the instant intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is to the judgment and order dated 26.12.2003 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 17984 of 2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the prayers to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 4.9.2003 issued by respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and to quash the decision of respondent No. 1 not to refer the industrial dispute between the appellants and the respondent No. 3 _ Reliance Industries Limited ('RIL' for short) in Conciliation Case No. 111 of 2001 to the industrial forum and also to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent No. 1 to make a reference to the industrial forum of the industrial dispute raised by the appellants against the RIL which is the subject matter of Conciliation Case No. 111 of 2001, have b...
Gujarat Flourochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Guj)587; [2008]300ITR328(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By filing the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside: (1) the order dated October 6, 1992 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda, by which the claim of interest on refund advanced by the petitioner was rejected as inadmissible under Sections 243(1)(b), 244(1A) and Section 214(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short); (2) the order dated January 18, 1993 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, by which interest claimed by the petitioner on the excess amount of tax deducted at source was rejected on the ground that excess amount of tax deducted at source was not as a result of order passed by an authority under the Act and that the provisions of Section 244A(1) of the Act were not applicable since those provisions were brought into force only from the assessment year 1989-90; and, (3) the order dated April 19, 1993 passed by the Government of India by which the claim ...
Tukiya Bhai Lakshubhai Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1139]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of petitioners.In the present group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (L.C.V.) Nos. 1949 of 1990 to No. 1960 of, 1990 dated 7th October, 2006. The Labour Court has rejected the Reference filed by the petitioners.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that Labour Court has committed gross error in not considering the evidence of the workmen and their witnesses those who were before the Labour Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave also submitted that Section 25F has been violated by the respondent, but, that fact has not been appreciated by the Labour Court. He further submitted that workmen remained in service for more than 10 to 12 years, then, it is necessary for the workmen to prove 240 days continuous service as required under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He relied upon the decision of the Court reported in : 2006 (1) GL...
Lalshankar Ramjibhai Shrimali Vs. Unjha Nagar Palika
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1134]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. R.V. Desai appearing on behalf of applicant-original respondent and learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of present opponent-original petitioner.Learned Advocate Mr. Dave made a mention that learned Advocate life Desai is not well/therefore; he left the Court. Even though, this Court has taken up this application for hearing because presence of learned Advocate Mr. Desai is not much relevant as averments made in the application are sufficient to consider thin application by this Court while examining the matter for Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The important is the answer which is given by the respondent who is present before this Court and I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing on behalf of present opponent - original petitioner.2. In main Special Civil Application No. 16640 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, District Mehsana in Perence (L.C.M.) No. ...
Morbi Nagar Palika (Nagar Sevasadan) Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1069]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.R. Dave for petitioner and Mr. Sunit Shah, learned Government Pleader with Ms. Sandhya Natani, Mr. Vinay Pandya, Mr. Amit Patel and Mr. Hukum Singh, Asstt. GPs for Respondent State Authority in this group of petitions.2. In this group of petitions, petitioner, Morbi Nagarpalika has challenged the order passed by Labour Court, Rajkot in recovery applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act, 1947' for short) dated 23.2.2007 wherein the Labour Court has determined amount of Rs. 6000.00 (Rupees six thousand only) payable to each workman by the opponent Nagarpalika under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, 1947 by ordering the Nagarpalika to pay the said amount to each workman within thirty days from the date of receipt of said order. No order was made as to costs by the Labour Court.3. Learned Advocate Mr. K.R. Dave appearing for petitioners in this group of petitions raised certain questions while challeng...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›