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.
Hitubha C. Zala Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1412
Anant S. Dave, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 8th April 1993, confirmed in appeal vide order dated 27th July 1993, and upheld by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 11th January 1994, and reinstating the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages with interest.2. The short facts of the case are as under:2.1 That the petitioner was serving as an Armed Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force, Cadre No. 10, Ukai until he came to be dismissed from service on 8th April 1993. A charge sheet dated 26th February 1991 came to be served on the petitioner on the ground that on 14th September 1990, when the petitioner was posted at a very sensitive point of Wadi Police Station area of Vadodara during the communal riots near Ranavav Masjid, he remained absent. That, on that day, w...
Sarvoday Charitable Trust Vs. Gujarat University and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1760
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner for the purpose of opening a College for imparting education in Master of Education (M.Ed.), which is a Post Graduation Course in the field of education, applied to National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as SNCTE for short) for grant of recognition. The petitioner is a self-financed college. Ultimately, on 30.5.2007 the recognition was granted on 11.6.2007 and thereafter final recognition is granted vide order dated 26.6.2007 to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, it had applied to the Gujarat University for affiliation vide application dated 19.6.2007 onwards and as there was no response and the academic year was to begin of 2007-08, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for the appropriate directions to the respondent University to grant affiliation for M.Ed. College.2. It appears that when the matter was at the interim stage, as no interim direction was given in th...
Cit Vs. Mrunalinidevi Puar of Dhar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008]305ITR263(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Bhopal (MP).(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee being the wife and sole surviving successor and legal heir has to be assessed in respect of the income arising to her from the properties of her late husband Shri Anandrao Puar as per the provisions of Section 159 or as per the provisions of Section 168 of the Act.(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified, in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Sakarlal v. CIT : [1992]193ITR16(SC) , in directing deletion, from assessee's income, of the sum of Rs. 12,72,790 for assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 99,000 for assessment year 1982-83 which represented income arising from the properties of the assessee's late husband ?...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra C. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Guj)493; [2008]299ITR305(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for availing of the benefit of immunity from levy of penalty provided in Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) in relation to the inclusion of income of Rs. 5,06,712/- representing the value of diamonds and whether such cancellation of penalty is based on true and correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of law?2. The Assessment Year is 1988-89. Search operations took place at the premises of one M/s. Dinal Gems, 303, Panchratna, Opera House, Bombay under Section 132 of the Act on 03.07.1987. Admittedly, the respondent-assessee was also present at that point of time at the said premises. A personal search of the asses...
Jigar Mayurbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2750; (2008)2GLR1134
D.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.2. The present application has been filed mainly under Sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in connection with the offence bearing Cr. No. I-4 of 2006 registered with DCB crime branch police station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, as the trial has not been competed after fixing the date of taking evidence of witnesses. 3. Thrice the matter is called out in three different rounds of calling. The learned advocate for the applicant is absent on all the three occasions. Neither the matter is mentioned nor the learned advocate for the applicant is present. Hence, I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.4. Having heard the lear...
Bharatbhai Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj106; 2008GLH(1)772; (2008)2GLR1128
M.S. Shah, J.1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the show-cause notice dated 14-5-2007 issued by the Collector, Porbandar under the provisions of Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the said notice, the petitioner is called upon to show cause why the petitioner should not be removed from the office of Councillor of Porbandar Municipality as the petitioner's third child was born on 16-12-2006 and thus the petitioner has incurred disqualification under the above Clause read with Section 38 which provide that the Councillor who has more than two living children after the period of one year from the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (which Amendment Act came into force on 4-8-2005) shall be disabled from continuing to be a Councillor and his office shall become vacant. The petitioner has also challeng...
Soham Sanatbhai Shukla Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj86; 2008GLH(1)547; (2008)2GLR1551
ORDERC.K. Buch, J.1. Rule. Mr. Vinay Pandya, learned AGP and Mr. D.G. Nanavati, learned Counsel waive service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 4 respectively.2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to be issued to respondent No. 3 authority of Vadodara Municipal Corporation to correct the name in the Birth Certificate of adoptive one year old baby from 'Surbhi' to 'Rene'.3. It is contended by the petitioner that the child was born at the Home for Women protection. It is, therefore, obvious that, either the name of the mother or father would not be intimated to the Corporation about the birth of the child. The Administrators managing the affairs of the protection home tentatively arranged to enter her name as 'Surbhi' in the Birth Certificate of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 9th Oct. 2006. There is no dispute as to the date of birth, i.e. 26-9-2006, and accordingly the Birth Certificate was issued by respondent Corpo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Guj)593; [2009]309ITR67(Guj); [2009]182TAXMAN183(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Though the title shows that the Commissioner of Income Tax (the CIT) is the applicant, in fact both the CIT and the assessee are the applicants and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act):At the instance of revenue:Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 263 of the Act whereby he had directed the assessing officer to withdraw deduction under Section 80I.At the instance of assessee:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the learned CIT had jurisdiction to pass order under Section 263 of the Act and the order of Assessing Officer did not stand merged in the order of the CIT(A)2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in rejecting the stand of the assessee that:(1) The tanks in question were being used for warehouse purposes: and(2) The val...
BipIn V. Patel Vs. Parry Engineering and Export Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR973
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.R. Shahani appearing on behalf of applicant 'workman and learned advocate Mr. Kiran C. Raval appearing on behalf of opponent' employer.2. In main Special Civil Application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Labour Court, Bharuch in Complaint No. 1 of 2004 dated 31st December 2005, wherein, Labour Court, Bharuch has granted reinstatement while setting aside the transfer order at Palej to the applicant within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of the award. This reinstatement order, initially, granted by this Court in favour of applicant by order dated 1st May 2006 which is quoted as under:1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. K.C. Raval on behalf of petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Shahani appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. In the present petition, petitioner challenged the award passed by the Labour Court No. 1, Bharuch in Complaint No. 1 of 2004 dated 31.12.2005. The Labour Court has set aside the...
Misrikhan Dilavarkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat Through the Secretar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)683; (2008)2GLR1292
C.K. Buch, J.1. Leave to amend the relief clause, more particularly, the date of birth from 29-3-1983 to 29-2-1993, reflected in prayer Clause 12(A). Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith.2. The petitioner-Misrikhan Dilavarkhan Pathan has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondents and more particularly to direct the respondent No. 4 to issue School Leaving Certificate stating correct date of birth as 18-8-1982 instead of 29-2-1993.3. It is submitted by the petitioner that when he was admitted in the primary school for the first time, some body who had been to the school, mentioned the incorrect date of birth and the place of birth. The petitioner was born on 18-8-1982 at Bhartiya Arogyanidhi Hospital, Gorsheri, Patan, but as per the School Leaving Certificate, the date of birth is shown to be 29-2-1983 and the birth place is shown as village Dasaj of Tal. Siddhpur.4. The birth date certificate of the petitioner is produced at Annexure-A and a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »