Gujarat Court January 2008 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.
Manu Tiling Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of Arti Agro Industrie ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: [2009]147CompCas330(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Both these applicants have taken out judge's summons praying for review and recall of the order dated December 26, 2007, passed by this Court in Official Liquidator's Report No. 93 of 2007 and to accept the offer made by them for the purchase of assets of the company being lot No. I, i.e., plant and machinery and all other movables and immovables including land and building super structure of the company situated at village Bhateshwar, Udaipur.2. So far as Company Application No. 4 of 2008 is concerned, this Court has issued notice on January 9, 2008. The said applicant has made the offer of Rs. 2.10 crores which was increased to Rs. 2.25 crores during the course of hearing of the application. Only with a view to show the bona fide of the applicant, he had shown his willingness to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 50 lakhs over and above the amount of EMD as well as late entry charges at 15 per cent. per annum with the official liquidator. At that stage, Mr. Sudhir Meh...
Shah Milk Processor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Adjn.)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2009[13]STR604
ORDER1. The following common questions have been proposed for admission of these appeals:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had exercised its discretionary power judiciously by not condoning delay in case of the appellant?2. Both the learned Counsel for the parties are prepared to argue the issue raised in these appeals even today.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The short controversy raised in the issue is whether the Tribunal has rejected the application for condonation of delay by exercising it's discretionary power judiciously. The delay is of about 6 months. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that no satisfying reason has been given by the Tribunal for rejection of the application. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the reasoning for the delay of six months, explained in the application. The same is reproduced below:The appellant had filed appeal against the order of the respondent dated 29-4-200...
Commssioner of Income Tax Vs. Elscope (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Guj)29
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following question, at the instance of the CIT, has been referred by Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' Under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act):Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the additional tax of Rs. 3,92,510 levied under Section 104 of the Act?2. The assessment year is 1979-1980. Consequent upon the addition made in the assessment for the assessment year in question, the AO made an order Under Section 104 of the Act levying additional tax of Rs. 3,92,510. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. In Revenue's second appeal the Tribunal, following its own order in quantum appeal, confirmed the order made by the CIT(A) holding that distributable income would be nil. The Tribunal has made the reference only because a reference had been made against the order made in quantum appeal.3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the applicant and the Revenue. They accepted the fact that this reference is consequential to the reference at the...
Elscope (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Guj)16; [2009]313ITR293(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This reference in fact encompasses two cross references: one by the assessee (R.A. No. 381/Ahd/1993), and another by the Revenue (R.A. Nos. 413 and 414/Ahd/1993).2.The question, at the instance of the assessee, has been referred by Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act):Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of guarantee commission of Rs. 3,16,668The said reference is for asst. yr. 1978-79, the relevant accounting period being year ended on 30th June, 1977.3. In Revenue's reference the Tribunal has referred the following two questions, which are identical in nature, except for the amounts involved for the two assessment years, namely, asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80:For asst. yr. 1978 79:Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,50,557 assessed by the ITO as the assessee's income observing that the assessee ...
Cit Vs. Shahibaug Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: [2010]320ITR695(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'C' has referred the following question at the instance of revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'):Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,93,546 holding that the amount in question represented capital gains and the said capital gains was exempt under Section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act ?2. The assessment year is 1979-80 and the relevant accounting period is financial year ended 31-3-1979. The assessee company sold certain shares of Suhrid Geigy Ltd. which had been acquired on 1-1-1974 to Koshalya (P) Ltd. which was a wholly owned subsidiary company of the assessee. Similarly, the assessee had also sold certain shares of Wadi Chemicals (P) Ltd. which had been acquired on 1-8-1977 to another wholly owned subsidiary company. The assessee worked out capital gains and claimed the said capital gains to be wholly exempt from tax under Section 47(iv) of the Ac...
Dy. Executive Engineer Vs. Prafulbhai Virabhai Virda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ598Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Gadhvi for the applicant original petitioner and Mr. UT Mishra for the opponent workman in this civil application for restoration of the main matter which has been dismissed by this Court for default by order dated 5.12.2007.2. Considering the submissions made by both the learned advocates and also considering the averments made in this application, order of this Court dated 5.12.2007 dismissing Special Civil Application No. 28800 of 2007 for default is hereby recalled. Said petition is hereby restored on the files of this Court. Said Miscellaneous Civil Application is disposed of with these directions.3. Today, this Court has taken up Special Civil Application No. 28800 of 2007 which is restored by this Court today in view of the orders passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 67 of 2008. Therefore, with consent of both the learned advocates, matter is taken up for hearing on admission.4. Through this petition under Artic...
Nareshkumar Purshottamdas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)1GLR852
M.D. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. M.A. Shaikh , Central Govt. Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 3-Union of India and Mr. K.T. Dave, waives service on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The reply affidavits/rejoinders filed by the respective parties are taken on record and considered.2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention bearing No. SP/TPS/ATK/CASEH/07 dated 16-9-2007 passed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Patan, under the purported exercise of powers vested with him under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') at the pre- execution stage.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is an authorized distributor of IOC since last more than 10 years and carrying on his business of LPG. According to the petitioner the Govt....
Keventer Agro Ltd. Vs. O.L. of Kengold (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas495(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in both these Company Applications, the same are disposed off by this common judgment and order.2. The applicant, namely, Keventer Agro Ltd., has taken out these two Judge's Summons making similar prayers in respect of two different lots of properties of the Company in liquidation, which have been purchased by it. The prayers made therein are as under:(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that in terms of the terms and conditions of sale the applicant shall be the absolute owner of the land in question, free from encumbrances, on payment of all dues of the land for the period from the date of passing of the order of winding-up and further on payment of balance consideration money and the applicant should not be held up for delay and/or non payment of pre-winding up dues of land in question;(B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator as well as the Land Revenue Department to take all necessary...
Union of India (UOi) thro' Director (Sr) and 3 Ors. Vs. Kantaben B. Da ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)445
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Union of India and the officers in the Postal Services Organisation have challenged the judgment and order dated 02.07.2007 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad.2. The respondent is the widow of a postman employed by the petitioner authorities. The deceased was proceeded for the charge of unauthorised absence for about five months. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the deceased approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the application of the deceased and by order dated 17.01.2002 directed the authorities to consider the Original Application before the Tribunal as a Revision Petition and to decide it on merits. Member (Personnel) Postal Service by his order dated 19.04.2002 modified the order of penalty for removal from service to that of compulsory retirement, in view of the length of t...
Baria Ambaben Vikrambhai Vs. State of Gujarat thro' Collector and Anr. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj73; 2008GLH(1)247
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Considering the urgency and the subject matter of the petition, with consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents authorities is directed to waive service.2. The brief facts necessary for the present are that the petitioner filled up nomination form for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Bamroli, Taluka: Jetpur-Pavi, District Vadodara pursuant to notification dated 31.12.2007 relating to election of members and sarpanch of the aforesaid gram panchayat. It is an admitted position that the post in question, namely of the sarpanch, relates to Socially and Educationally Backward Class (woman), while the ward in question was Anusuchit AdiJati (woman). The election schedule provided for scrutiny of nomination forms to be undertaken on 7.1.2008 from 11.00am onwards till the point of time the scrunity was complete. The nomination form of the petitioner came...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »