Gujarat Court April 2008 Judgments
Vimal Services Ltd. Vs. Bank of India thro' Manager and Anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR1894
ORDER30. Before the aforesaid CAV judgment could be signed, Shri J.T. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-Bank, has prayed that the operation of the present judgment may be suspended at least for some time because ultimately it is the obligation of the respondent No. 1-Bank to pay the amount.31. As the present judgment, to some extent, so far as the award of costs and interest is concerned, has some element of mandamus, it would be in the interest of justice to place the same under suspension. 32. There is strong resistance from the other side so far as request for suspension is concerned. It is also submitted by Shri Vyas that the respondent No. 1-Bank at least should be asked to pay something during the interregnum period, but this submission is not found acceptable. 33. Hence, the present judgment is hereby ordered to be placed under suspension till 14th May 2008 and there shall not be any further extension of the same. 34. Direct Service is permitted....
Tag this Judgment!Voltamp Transfomers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Guj)254
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the assessee:Whether, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law and on the facts and failed to appreciate the circumstances prevailing on the valuation date i.e. 30.6.1983 for the purpose of valuation of two transformers ordered by Punjab State Electricity Board having regard to the material on record and thereby erred in holding the manner in which the company valued the closing stock of two transformers, and that such market value is not justified ?2. The Assessment Year is 1984-85, the relevant accounting period being year ended on 30th June, 1983. The assessee, a limited Company, is manufacturer of power transformers normally supplied to the State Electricity Boards and large companies. Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) placed an order for 12 transformers of 33/11 KV class. The assessee company ma...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOi) thr' General Manage ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj148; 2008(3)ARBLR439(Gujarat); (2008)3GLR2561
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original plaintiff has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the order dtd.24/10/2005 passed below Ex.53 by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar in Regular Civil Suit No. 316 of 1993 in allowing the application Ex.53 submitted by the respondents herein - original defendants by directing both the parties to refer the dispute / matter to the arbitrator as per Clause 34 of the Siding Agreement which is produced at Mark 4/1 appointed by the defendants and to produce its report of arbitrator within six months.2. The petitioner herein - original plaintiff ('the plaintiff' for short) filed Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 1990 in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Porbandar against the respondents herein - original defendants ('the defendants' for short) on 23/3/1990, which was subsequently renumbered as Regular C...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagudeo Flour Mills P. Ltd. Vs. O.L. of Disha Agro Industries Ltd. an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas828(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since the subject-matter of both these applications is somewhat similar and both these applications deal with the same property, they are heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In Company Application No. 337 of 2005, the applicant has taken out the judges summons praying for permanent injunction against the official liquidator from taking possession of the factory, land and building of the applicant at survey No. 427, Maha Gujarat Industrial Nagar, village Moraiya, National Highway No. 8, Sarkhej-Bavla Highway--taluka Sanand, Ahmedabad.3. In Company Application No. 279 of 2006 the applicant has taken out the judges summons praying for a direction to the official liquidator to execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant in respect of the above referred property.4. In both these applications, affidavits are filed by Shri Dharmin Patel, director of the applicant-company in support of the respective judges summons.5. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkot Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Bharatbhai Hazare
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR1937
H.K. Rathod, J.1. RULE. Service of Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. HC Raval on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of both the learned Advocates, matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the petitioner and MR. Hardik C. Raval, learned Advocate for the respondent.3. Through this petition, the petitioner Rajkot Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. Has challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Gujarat in Revision Application (IC) No. 7 of 2007 dated 16.2.2008. Revision Application was filed by the respondent against the order passed by the labour court in BIR Application No. 5 of 2004 vide Exh. 22 wherein the labour court has come to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry conducted against the workman is legal and valid. Revision application filed against the said order below Exh. 22 in BIR Application No. 5 of 2004 was challenged by filing revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Filters Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(120)ECC6; 2008(156)LC6(Gujarat); 2009(234)ELT444(Guj); (2008)2GLR1585; 2009[13]STR245
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges primarily order dated 12.12.1988 (Annexure-H) made by Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate authority').2. The petitioner-Company filed an appeal against Order-in-Original dated 21.05.1987 made by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division-IV, Ahmedabad, approving price list No. 181/83-84 dated 22.06.1983 by adding 30%. However, after hearing the petitioner-appellant the appellate authority came to the conclusion that one M/s. Hindustan Dorr Oliver Company Limited (the buyer company) was Sclosely related' with the petitioner-Company; that the relationship between the two is so interrelated that the petitioner-appellant and the buyer company have direct interest in the business of each other. Therefore, they would be covered by Proviso (ii) of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act). Hence, the appellate authority set aside the order made by the ad...
Tag this Judgment!Garware-wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. Techfab India and 5 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: LC2008(3)192
K.A. Puj, J.1. The appellant-original plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the interlocutory order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court below injunction application Exh. 5 in Civil Suit No. 04 of 2005 whereby the injunction as prayed for was refused.2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a well reputed manufacturer and seller of synthetic ropes, twines and yarns, nettings and various rope products including Geosynthetic products and systems. One of such products manufactured and sold by the appellant is known as Synthetic Rope Gabion, referred to as SRG Invention in the plaint of the suit. The SRG invention is primarily used for the preservation of riverbanks, seashores, seacoasts etc., particularly to prevent erosion caused by natural processes. Long back since 1983, the appellant has been having a well equipped Research and Development ('R&D;') unit undertaking R&D; in the fields of interests to the appellant including Geosyntheti...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. O.L. of Benzo Petrochemicals Ltd. and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas655(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant / Bank of Baroda has taken out this Judges Summons praying for the direction to Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein to release an amount of Rs. 10.22 lacs (Rs. 4.38 lacs + 5.84 lacs as 14.6% share of the applicant-bank in Rs. 30 lacs and Rs. 40 lacs that allowed for disbursement amongst the secured creditors as per orders dated 8.4.2005 and 8.8.2005 passed by this Court) in Company Application No. 89 of 2005 with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereon.2. An affidavit is filed by Mr. Nagesh Sambhaji Shetpalkar-the Senior Manager of the applicant Bank in support of the Judges Summons.3. Mr. Indravadan Parmar, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is one of the secured creditor amongst the others having first charge in its favour on the assets of the Company in liquidation. The applicant had submitted affidavit of proof of its debts, charge details, undertaking etc. Accordingly the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Panchmahal Steel Limited Vs. the Bank of Baroda and 10 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1673
ORDER:(A) In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated November 01, 2007 passed by the DRAT, Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No. 217 of 2007 to the extent it permits attachment and inventory of goods and the order dated October 29, 2007 passed by the DRT, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 18/A of 2007, to the extent that it held that Appeal No. 18/A of 2007 is not maintainable deserve to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly they are quashed and set aside.(B) Prayer with regard to the order of Learned Recovery Officer dated October 22, 2007 in the Recovery Proceedings No. 1503 can not be granted since the Appeal No. 18/A of 2007 is pending before the DRT, Ahmedabad. Hence the same is rejected without going into its legality, validity, as the competent tribunal, i.e. DRT, Ahmedabad is already seized with the matter.(C) The petitioner is at liberty to move The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for ad-interim relief / interim relief in the pending Appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Shivaji Thakor and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3083
M.R. Shah, J.1. Instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by the appellants - original accused challenging the judgement and order of conviction dtd.25/9/2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Deesa at Palanpur, in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2000 convicting the appellants herein ' original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, sentencing the appellants to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs. 3000=00 and in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Mr. M.C. Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants ' original accused has submitted that the appellants and the victim Dajaji Kacharaji have entered into a Deed of Compromise and have settled the dispute and therefore, the appellants do not challenge the impugned judgement and order of conviction on merits and accept the judgement and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »