Gujarat Court February 2008 Judgments
Gaurav Pradip Verma Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4009; 2008GLH(1)724; (2008)1GLR873
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 19th July 1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. VIII, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 384 of 1991 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and convicted the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo imprisonment for two months.2. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:2.1 The appellant-accused, along with his parents and sister who was studying in XIIth standard, was residing in Garden View Flats near Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Father of victim had three daughters and one son, out of which eldest daughter was married, while his other two younger daughters expired. The victim was studying in XII standard.2.2 On 30th August 1991 Police Sub Inspector Gohil received a telephonic message from first informant PW1 stating that a person who is residing in Gard...
Tag this Judgment!Hiteshkumar K. Chauhan Vs. Union of India (UOi) thr' General Manager a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1545
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order dated 02.05.2005, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench rejected Original Application No. 90 of 2003 and also disposed of Misc. Application No. 174 of 2004, is before this Court.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:2.1 The petitioner is a handicapped person, who in response to a notification issued by the respondents for filling up the vacancies of Group 'C' and 'D' posts against quota for handicapped persons, applied and appeared in the written test held on 19.11.2000.2.2 The petitioner being successful in the written test was called for Viva Voce. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared well in Viva Voce. As the petitioner did not find his name in the list of successful candidates, he made a representation to the respondent authorities. The father of the petitioner, who was an ex Railway employee, also approached the Senior Divisional Personnel Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Valabhai Family Trust Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Guj)588; [2008]306ITR221(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges notice dt. 31st March, 1994 (Annex. 'A') issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act').2. The petitioner is an AOP, carrying on business as builder and developer. For asst. yr. 1983-84 return of income came to be filed originally on 18th July, 1984 showing total income at nil. This was revised on 18th Feb., 1986 declaring total income at nil. The assessment order came to be framed on 31st March, 1986 under Section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 1,37,930.3. As the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year upon notice being issued, the respondent has placed on record copy of reasons recorded on 31st March, 1994 which reads as under:As per tax deduction certificate filed, the total amount paid to assessee for work done is stated of Rs. 20,57,903 instead the work done is shown in the return of income amounting to Rs. 1,98,800 by the assessee.Sd/- Illegibl...
Tag this Judgment!Hitendra S. Patel Vs. Dist. Education Officer and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2136
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was studying in T.Y. B.Sc., was desirous to join Indian Air Force. As per the petitioner, his correct birth date is 10.12.1968, but in the school record, it was wrongly declared as 28.11.1967 and, therefore, in the SSC Certificate, the birth date mentioned was 28.11.1967. As per the petitioner, he applied for the correction of the birth date, but no action was taken and in the meantime, the petitioner apprehended that based on the discrepancy in the birth date as that of 10.12.1968 and the SSC Certificate showing 28.11.1967, his candidature may be rejected and, therefore, he preferred the present petition for appropriate directions to the respondents to issue new SSC Certificate or to modify SSC Certificate by changing the birth date from 28.11.1967 to 10.12.1968. 2. When this Court considered the matter at the admission stage on 29.11.1989, the Division Bench of this Court had passed the order as under:Ad-inte...
Tag this Judgment!Tejumal Dayaldas Mulani (Sindhi) Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR953
J.R. Vora, J.1. Instant Appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad City, on 19th of January, 2006, in Sessions Case No. 144 of 2002 against his conviction and sentence. Including present appellant, in the said Sessions Case, in all there were three accused and accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be acquitted by the Trial Court for all the charges levelled against them, while present appellant-accused No. 1 came to be convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 8 years for the offence proved against him under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one year for the offence proved against him under Section 306 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamprakash Spinning Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Administrator Madahavpur ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj84; [2009]148CompCas624(Guj); (2008)2GLR1298
Jayant Patel, J.1. When the Civil Application came up for hearing, the main Special Civil Application is taken up for final hearing.2. The facts as such are not dispute, and in brief can be narrated as under:As per the petitioner the working capital facility of Rs. 1.50 Crores was taken from Kalupar Commercial Co-operative Bank Limited, and thereafter in January 1997, the petitioner took loan from respondent bank Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited, and repaid the amount. The amount of loan taken from respondent bank remained outstanding. The petitioner filed Reference No. 192 of 1997 before BIFR. As per the petitioner the scheme is sanctioned by BIFR and the scheme inter alia includes the schedule of repayment for dues of the respondent bank too. The petitioner apprehended that the action may be taken by the respondent bank, as the suit was filed being Arbitration Suit No. H-03149 of 2003. Therefore the present petition before this Court for the relief inter alia to direct ...
Tag this Judgment!Unchidhanal Group Gram Panchayat and 6 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1275
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 1.10.2007 issued by the respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (Sthe Act for short), whereby, Unchidhanal Group Gram Panchayat has been bifurcated and two villages, namely, Tuver and Veekharan, have been separated from the said Group Gram Panchayat by forming a separate Group Gram Panchayat, i.e. Tuver Group Gram Panchayat. During the pendency of the petition, an amendment to the petition has been carried out whereby the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 20.10.2007 and 22.10.2007, appointing an Administrator for the newly-formed Group Gram Panchayats.2. The petitioner No. 1 is Unchidhanal Group Gram Panchayat. The petitioner No. 2 is the Sarpanch of the said Panchayat, the petitioners No. 3 to 5 are the residents of village Tuver and the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Shantinath Silk Mills
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Guj)434; [2008]303ITR58(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Following two questions have been referred by Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the CIT, Surat:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that by crediting the partners, capital account by the amount standing to the credit of the investment allowance reserve account does not result in distribution by way of profit of such reserve in a case where assessee has utilised the amount credited to the investment allowance reserve account for the purpose of acquiring new machinery and plant for the purpose of the business of the undertaking?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that if out of three conditions as prescribed by the provisions of Section 32A(5), one condition in Sub-clause (b) is satisfied and the other two conditions as mentioned in sub-clause (a) and Clause (c) are not...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakhanpal National Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Guj)503; [2008]304ITR365(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act') at the instance of the CIT.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee was entitled for the deduction as claimed by it under Section 80I of the Act?2. The assessment years are 1982-83, and 1983-84. The relevant accounting periods are calendar years ended on 31st Dec, 1981 and 31st Dec, 1982, respectively. The assessee, a public limited company, claimed deduction under Section 80I of the Act, which was disallowed by the AO on the basis of a report tendered by the Inspector on 16th Sept., 1985. The claim for the first assessment year is restricted to a part of year considering the fact that the plant was commissioned w.e.f. 2nd June, 1981 for manufacture of Um-1 and Um-3 types of dry cell batteries. The Inspector, in his report stated as under:During the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Products Market Committee Vs. Piyush M. Sukhadia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR672]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Joy Mathew for the petitioner.In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference No. 25 of 1994 dated 30.3.2007 whereby the Labour Court. Bharuch has granted lumpsum amount being compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of respondent with cost of Rs. 1000/-.2. Learned advocate Mr. Mathew appearing for the petitioner raised contention that the person, who has not been employed by following regular recruitment procedure arid in case of termination challenged, then, Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is not applicable. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Iitazam Ali Jakuri : 2006 (110) FLR 773 (SC). Relying upon Para 4 of the aforesaid decision, he submitted that when initial appointment itself is void then, provisions of Section 25 of the I.D. Act, 1947 are not applicable while terminating the service of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »