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.
Uttamsingh Jodhsingh Ahaluwalia Vs. Jagzitkaur Giansingh Ahaluwalia an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)1GLR643
R.H. Shukla, J.1. Rule.Ms. Archana Acharya, learned Advocate, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of the opponents.2. The present application for production of additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for short) has been filed by the appellant-original defendant on the ground set out in the Civil Application, inter alia, that the applicant's father Jodhsingh Ahluwalia had two sons, the applicant and Gyansingh, and the father, who was doing the business, had taken the applicant and Gyansingh as partners in the partnership business carried on in the name and style of Jodhsingh Gulabsingh & Sons. The copy of the partnership deed is produced at Annexure-A. It has been contended that the suit house Gomti Kunj was purchased in the year 1973 by the applicant and Gyansingh, that is, two brothers. However, the consideration was paid by cheques drawn on the account of the partnership firm maintained with Punjab National Bank. Therefore,...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manishaben Mahendra @ Shanker Joshi a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1861
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) seeks to challenge order dated 18.06.2007 of M.A.C.T., Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No.556 of 2004 only on the ground that the claim under Section 163A of the Act could not have been allowed in favour of the heirs of the driver of sole vehicle involved in the accident. The appeal was restricted to the liability upto Rs. 2,82,834/- out of the award of Rs. 3,82,834/- (with interest and cost) in view of the fact that, admittedly, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- was covered by the personal accident insurance of the driver. The facts about which there is no controversy are that, on 05.06.2004, the deceased, driving scooter No. GJ-7-P-5487, dashed with the parapet of a bridge near village Anandsar in Kachchh district. The deceased aged 42 was claimed to be earning Rs. 40,000/- and his parents, widow and children claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The scooter driven by the deceased was own...
Varshaben Panchabhai Nakum Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)1GLR799
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgement. For ready reference the facts as enumerated in Special Civil Application No. 11940 of 2007 in the matter of Varshaben Panchabhai Nakum v. State of Gujarat are taken up.2. According to the petitioner an advertisement for direct recruitment on the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed Branch) Class - III was issued. The petitioner applied for the same. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner has passed Preliminary Examination and appeared in main Written Test and was also called for Physical Test. The petitioner was not called for interview and therefore the petitioner along with other candidates had made representations to the respondent State but the grievances of the petitioner and others was not redressed by the respondent State. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, writ petitions were preferred ...
Asha M. Barasara Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2462
R.M. Doshit, J.1. These three Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from the common judgment and order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as the above Special Civil Applications Nos. 22069 of 2007; 27249 of 2007 & 18609 of 2007 are dismissed. The appellants before this Court are the writ petitioners in the above Special Civil Applications. The matters arise from a common subject i.e., the competitive test held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Commission'] for recruitment to the posts of District Education Officer and equivalent Class-I posts [Administrative Branch] under the Government of Gujarat. The Appeals are, therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates, heard and decided by this common judgment.2. Recruitment to the posts of District Education Officer and equivalent Class-I posts in the Gujarat Educational Service [Administrative Branch]-Class I is governed by the statuto...
Rameshbhai C. Patel Vs. M.D. Chauhan, Official Liquidator Visnagar Nag ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)1GLR756
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.T. Rao on behalf of petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. Dharmesh Shah appearing for respondent No. 1, Official Liquidator and learned A.G.P. Ms. Kiran Pandey appearing for the respondent No. 2.2. Rule.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Dharmesh Shah waives service of rule for respondent No. 1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Kiran Pandey waives service of rule for respondent No. 2. With consent of all the learned Advocates, matter is taken up for final hearing today.4. This petition is filed by the petitioner claiming the conveyance allowance from respondent No. 1. Prayer made in this petition at page 24 in Para 20(A), (B), (C) and (D) are quoted as under:(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper, quashing and setting aside the order dated 29-3-2006 (Annexure-K) by the respondent No. 3 denying the legitimate right...
Cit Vs. Office of the Official Liquidator
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)165CTR(Guj)218; [2009]316ITR181(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following five questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') at the instance of the Commissioner:1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 18,18,429 being the debenture issue expenses, wherein the Commissioner (Appeal) had held that it is of a capital nature covered by Section 35D?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the weighted deduction regarding commission paid to Indian agents to the extent of export sales ?3. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,37,885 made by the way of adjustment entry in the municipal tax expenses account ?4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing deduction of legal expenses of Rs. 10,043 and Rs. 13,500 being expenses attributable to issue of debentures as revenue expen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: [2008]301ITR328(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) 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 the facts in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 23 lakhs levied under Section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS when the assessee transferred the purchase price as sarafi2. The assessment year is 1991. The assessee, a limited company, is a subsidiary of another limited company M/s. Lallubhai Amichand and Company Limited (the creditor company). The assessee purchased goods from time to time from the creditor company as per the following details:-----------------------------------------------Date Amount (Rs.) (Rs.)-----------------------------------------------26-5-1989 5,65,858 9,24,908 27-5-1989 3,59,050 7-6-1989 4,65,613 8-6-1989 4,62,946 8-6-1989 4,79,606 14,08...
Vithalbhai Chhaganbhai (Since Decd.) Vs. State of Gujarat Thr' Secreta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)656
M.S. Shah, J.1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the notice-cum-order dated 01/17.02.2007 (Annexure-A) passed by the Chief Officer of Padra Municipality respondent No. 3 herein seeking to remove the petitioner's cabins situated at Gandhi Chowk, Padra, District Vadodara.2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, as averred by the petitioner, are as under:The petitioner and his son are doing the business of selling shoes/footwear in Cabin Nos.107 and 108 which are situated at Gandhi Chowk in Padra, District Vadodara. According to the petitioner, Cabin No. 107 was given to the petitioner on licence basis by Padra Nagar Panchayat, which was thereafter converted into Municipality. Similarly, Cabin No. 108 was given to the petitioner on licence basis by Padra Nagar Panchayat. The petitioner's case is that on account of objection lodged by Bahubal Rasiklal Shah against the licence granted in favour of the petitioner, the Vadodara District Panchayat raised an...
State of Gujarat Vs. Prajapati Amratlal Natvarlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)631; (2008)1GLR765
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. By means of filing this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant State of Gujarat has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order dated 1/6/1996 rendered by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Petlad [hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Magistrate'] in Criminal Case No. 2433 of 1985, acquitting the respondent accused of the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ['the Act' for short].2. According to the prosecution case, Mr. M.J. Jadav, who was Food Inspector, District Kheda, visited grocery shop of the respondent accused on 21/5/1985 at about 10.00 AM in capacity as Food Inspector. He was accompanied by his Peon as well as Panch. He introduced himself as Food Inspector to the accused and collected the sample of turmeric powder by purchasing 450 grams of turmeric powder. He collected the said sample and divided ...
Ganpat Mohanbhai Vasava Vs. Additional Development Commissioner and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj88; (2008)1GLR844
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 6-10-2007 (Annexure SB) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the proceedings against the respondent No. 3 (Sarpanch) have been withdrawn and, further to quash and set aside the order dated 7-12-2007 (Annexure SC) rendered by the respondent No. 1, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been returned.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto are, that the petitioner is a resident of village Siludi, Tal. Valia, District: Bharuch. The respondent No. 3 is the Sarpanch of the Siludi Gram Panchayat. The said respondent was elected as Sarpanch in the year 2002 and his term of office was to end on 17-1-2007. Thereafter, the election for the office of Sarpanch, for the period 2007 to 2012 was held in Decemb...