Gujarat Court October 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.
Syed Babar Chisty Son of Shri Hamid Chisty Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1057
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sodhi on behalf of applicant Syed Babar Chisty Son of Shri Hamid Chisty, learned A.P.P. Mr. Dave appearing for State of Gujarat.2. The present application is filed under Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sodhi raised contention before this Court that allegation made against accused applicant that two persons namely Salim and Jallaluddin show me for putting bag in car, except that according to him no evidence available with prosecution to establish charge against applicant.4. He submitted that witness Jallaluddin died during pendency of proceeding and Salim who turned hostile in support of case of applicant. Except these two witnesses, there was no evidence against applicant for establishing charge levelled against applicant. Therefore, applicant shall have to release on bail, who is in jail for more than six years.5. He also relied upon decision of Co-ordinate Bench (Coram : H...
Ambalal J. Doshi and 2 ors. Vs. Bharat Traders and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]147CompCas465(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 28th April, 1993 passed by the learned Company Judge in Suit No. 2 of 1979, whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent No. 1 original plaintiff.2. The facts stated briefly are that the plaintiff firm consisted of two partners, Rajendra Sheth and Harish Himmatlal Sheth, who were members of the first defendant Company i.e. M/s Shri Bharat Hand-Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. (the Company). Shri Himmatlal Sheth and Shri Harish Sheth were also Directors of the said Company. The defendants No. 2 to 6 belonged to the group of the defendant No. 2 - Shri Ambalal G. Doshi and according to the plaintiff, they were all members of the Company. Shri Himmatlal Sheth and Shri Ambalal G. Doshi had promoted the Company and were running the business of the Company. In substance, the Company had two groups of shareholders, led by Shri Himmatlal Sheth and and the other led by Shri Ambalal G. Doshi.3. According to the plai...
Rajendrabhai D. Makwana and 4 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR961
A.L. Dave, J.1. Lilaben, daughter of complainant Babarbhai Govindbhai Gohil, was married to original accused No. 1 on 31/5/1991. Accused appellant No. 1 and Lilaben were staying at Thanklessly near the house of complainant Babarbhai Govindbhai Gohil. Parents of accused appellant No. 1 Devajibhai Prabhubhai Makwana and Kashiben Devajibhai Makwana are staying at village Ikhar, District Bharuch, which is at a distance of about 30 Kms from Ankleshwar and elder brother of accused appellant No. 1 Kanchanlal Devajibhai Makwana and his wife Taraben stay at Bharuch; whereas younger brother of accused appellant No. 1 Girishbhai Devajibhai Makwana stays at Ikhar.1.1. Lilaben committed suicide at her home on 8/6/1999 around 1300 hours by hanging herself by neck with the fan. On being informed about the incident, Babarbhai Govindbhai Gohil, father of the deceased immediately informed the police and the police recorded his information and registered offence. Investigation was started. It was found t...
Blue Star Limited Vs. S. Kalyankrishnan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR985
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Rule. Shri Mayank Desai with Shri Nilesh M Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondent. With the consent of the counsels for the parties' rule is fixed forthwith.2. The petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has assailed the order & award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No. 271/1998 dated 10/3/2005, and the order rejecting restoration application being Misc. Application No. 112 of 2005 passed on 11/1/2007; on the ground that the Labour Court has not passed the award strictly in consonance with law and, therefore, they are perverse and as such deserve to be quashed and set aside.3. The respondent-workman herein above had to raise industrial dispute on his termination from the service. The competent authority referred the same to the Labour Court for adjudication, which came to be numbered as Reference (LCV) 271/1998. The statement of claims came to be filed by the respondent workm...
Dy. C.i.T. Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Guj)580; [2009]308ITR263(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. These tax appeals were originally heard and decided vide judgment rendered on 25-4-2001. In the same judgment, Civil Application Nos. 53 and 54 of 2001 moved by Revenue were rejected summarily. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before Supreme Court of India and appeals against the judgment rendered in both the tax appeals and order made in both the Civil Applications were admitted by Supreme Court. Vide judgment rendered on 8-2-2008, Apex Court dismissed Civil Appeals of Revenue against judgment rendered in the two tax appeals. However, in relation to the two Civil Applications and the order made therein, this is what has been observed by the Apex Court:Apart from the above question under Section 36(1)(iii), the present civil appeals are filed by the Department against the decision of the High Court whereby the High Court has dismissed Civil Applications Nos. 53 and 54 of 2001 filed by the Department. It may be noted that during the pendency of Tax Appeals Nos. 449 ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Hylam Securities and Finance (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN317(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Appellant-revenue has proposed following two questions:(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting addition of Rs. 71,26,502 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Surat?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse or not?2. The assessment year in question is 2003-04, the relevant accounting period being financial year ended on 31-3-2003. The Assessing Officer, while confirming assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), disallowed/added back a sum of Rs. 71,57,277 towards outstanding creditors for freight under Section 69C of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the expenses claimed and shown as outstanding towards freight charges payable could not be treated as real and genuine as the assessee had faile...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›