Gujarat Court February 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.
Shivshankar Harjivanrai Joshi (Deceased by L.Rs.) Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2908; (2008)3GLR2669
M.R. Shah, J.1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 5662 of 2007 is filed by the applicants-heirs and legal representatives of the original accused-respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1995-Shivshankar Harjivanrai Joshi for an appropriate order for abatement the proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1995 in view of the death of original respondent-Shivshankar Harjivanrai Joshi on 19-12-2006. Along with the application death certificate issued by the competent authority of Botad Nagarpalika is annexed. Thus, it appears that the original respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1995 has expired during the pendency of criminal appeal.2. Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1995 is filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27-10-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 1998 acquitting the respondent-original accused for the offences punishable under Section 161 of...
Saheli Synthetsics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Guj)343; (2008)302GLR126(GJ)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred three questions at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as against 12 questions proposed by the assessee:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in interpreting the order of the CIT (A) dated 5-2-1992 as open set aside i.e., setting aside the assessment order in toto and accordingly the A.O. was justified bringing to tax a new source of income while framing the de novo assessment?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Excise Duty collected by the assessee on grey fabrics was in the nature of trading receipts and hence disallowable under Section 43B of the Act ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the bank guarantee furnished by the assessee which was tak...
District Primary Education Officer and 2 ors. Vs. Dakshaben L. Pandya ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1592
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arises from the judgment and order dated 9th August, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5974 of 1987. The appellant before this Court is the District Primary Education Officer, Panchmahals. The respondents Nos. 1 to 45 writ petitioners are the candidates who, in answer to the advertisement published on 29th September, 1986, had applied for appointment as primary school teacher under the appellant.2. For appointment as primary school teacher, a candidate, under the relevant recruitment rules, is required to possess Certificate in Primary Teacher's Training (PTC). The State Government, under its Resolution dated 31st May, 1965, resolved that untrained teachers possessing qualification in the special subjects like Hindi, Drawing, Physical Education, Music, Tailoring, etc., be appointed in the primary schools. But such appointment should not be more than 15% of the new recr...
Patel Sunilkumar Manubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)572; (2008)1GLR690
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present petition is filed in the background that there were certain posts which were required to be filled in from the candidates belonging to the category of Physically Handicapped. The respondents have joined the issue and have stated that as provided by the Statute they have enrolled the candidates belonging to Physically Handicapped Category. They have filled in 12 posts from Physically Handicapped Category candidates whereas total number of posts were 312. That would make more than quota also because the quota is only 3% i.e. Making it to nine seats. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has joined the issue and stated that these candidates have been enrolled as they having been enrolled under the category of Physically Handicapped but as they have on their own merit secured place in the selection. Once they get into the general quota on their own, they cannot be considered under the Physically Handicapped Category. Thus, recruitment of these twelve p...
Arvindbhai Chimanbhai Padhiyar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2149
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Shri H.R. Prajapati, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Vinay Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Shri Premal Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.2. Rule. The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Shri Vinay Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and the same is also waived by Shri Premal Joshi on behalf of respondent No. 3. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent.3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction that the order dated 6th June, 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 may be held to be illegal, invalid and unfair, whereby the respondent No. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner for allotment of fair-price shop at village Runvad, Taluka and District Vadodara; and in the similar way, the order dat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: [2008]305ITR267(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This reference raises the following common question of law which has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejecting the application made by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 for excluding interest on deferred payment on purchase of machineries in view of Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) with retrospective effect?2. The assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84, but, for the assessment year 1982-83 the controversy emanates from two different proceedings 'one from the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act which was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and after an order was made by the Commissioner (Appeals) the Revenue invoked the provision of Section 154 of the Act seeking...
Chauhan Mehbub Osman Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR929]; (2008)IIILLJ484Guj
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10335 of 1999.2. The appellant was engaged by the respondent-State Government under the Deputy Executive Engineer, Junagadh as an apprentice in the trade of Helper for a period of three years from 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1992. During the period of apprenticeship, he was paid stipend. After completion of the period of apprenticeship, he was discharged. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh and registered as Reference [LCJ] No. 174 of 1994. Before the Labour Court, the appellant submitted statement of claim. According to the appellant, he was employed by the respondent as a Helper in the year 1987. He worked as such from 1987 till 1989 when he came to be engaged as an apprentice in the ...
B.i.F.R. Vs. Cmd, Aps Star Industries Ltd. and 27 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas302(Guj); [2008]83SCL239(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since all these petitions as well as Company Applications are in respect of the same Company, namely, APS Star Industries Ltd., they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Company Petition No. 190 of 2003 is registered on the basis of opinion forwarded by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 16.7.2003 to the Registrar of this Court under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) stating that despite having allowed enough time and opportunity, it had not been possible to formulate any acceptable revival scheme for the company enabling it to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations and that the Company as a result thereof was not likely to become viable in future and that it was just, equitable and in public interest that the Company should be wound up under Section 20(1) of the Act.3. This ...
Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Guj)351; [2008]302ITR173(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following three questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the applicant-assessee.1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's interpretation and application of Rule 29 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 is correct in law?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision not to admit additional evidence is correct in law in view of Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas v. CIT (1977) CTR 647?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstnaces of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the successor CIT(A) not to consider the evidence produced by the assessee as directed by the predecessor CIT(A) and in itself not considering it?2. The Assessment Year is 1991-92, the relevant accounting period being Financial Year ended on 31.03.1991. The as...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Guj)509; [2008]302ITR63(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. 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, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,85,003 made on account of unaccounted cash sales?2. The assessment year is 1984-85. The relevant accounting period being year ended on 30th June, 1983. The assessee, an individual, is engaged in business of trading in tyres under the name and style of 'M/s Punjab Tyres'. Search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act were carried out on 6th and 7th Sept., 1984 at the residential and business premises of the assessee. In the course of search, various books of accounts and documents were seized. Annexures 'C/4 to C/15' were some of the loose sheets which were seized during the course of Section 132 proceedings and the said sheets reflected sales made on various dates for the period from 15th July, 1983 upto the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »