Gujarat Court April 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.
Rasiklal S. Mardia Vs. O.L. of Mardia Chemicals Limited and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2008
Reported in: [2008]147CompCas31(Guj); [2010]97SCL221(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant has taken out this Judge's Summons praying for the following directions and/or orders from this Court:YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to permit me to represent in all legal cases filed by / against Mardia Chemicals Limited, a Company in liquidation and to direct the Official Liquidator to provide me the copies of the documents, for defending these suits, as and when required;YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator of Mardia Chemicals Limited (In Liquidation) To file appropriate proceedings for challenging / recalling the order dated 12.09.2007 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3189 of 2002;To represent the Company in liquidation in the proceedings enlisted in Annexure A to the affidavit in support of the Judge's Summons;To appear in Misc. Application filed in Counter Claim in Original Application No. 278 of 2002 and to suitably defend the Company in liquidation in the said proceedings;To represent the Company in li...
Gopalbhai Meghajibhai Kantia Vs. Superintending Engineer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR832]; (2008)3GLR2200; (2009)IILLJ225Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. In main Special Civil Application No. 19234 of 2006, the original petitioner has challenged the award passed by Labour Court in Reference No. 459 of 1987 dated 13th April 2006. The Labour Court has set aside the termination order dated 25th December 1985 and instead of that, five increments are stopped without cumulative effect and directed to pay 75% backwages of interim period with continuity of service to respondent workman with consequential benefits. The Labour Court has also directed to original petitioner to take decision about sick leave for the period from 17th August 1983 to 31st August 1985.3. This Court, initially, issued notice returnable on 6th October 2006 on 8th September 2006 and meanwhile, this Court has directed to petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service on or before returnable date. Meanwhile, award is stayed qua backwages till 6th October 2006. Thereafter, o...
Ramnikbhai Ramjibhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat Thro. Vilasini Ramc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2602
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the Notification issued by the respondents under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) dtd.30/8/2005 in so far as the land of the petitioners bearing Revenue Survey No. 254 of village Sola, Taluka Daskroi, District ; Ahmedabad, area admeasuring 5733 sq.mtrs.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of impugned notification, the lands of ten land owners, inclusive of the petitioners' land, admeasuring 62,000 sq.mtrs., are acquired for the expansion of the existing Gujarat High Court complex as well as for providing other facilities and for the construction of building for various authorities like Gujarat State Judicial Academy, Gujarat State Legal Service Authority, High Court Legal Aid Services Committee and the petitioners' land is admeasuring 5733 sq.mtrs. onl...
Mustan Taherbhai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(230)ELT593(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. RULE. Mr. Harin P Raval waives service of Rule for the respondents.In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.2008 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad on Stay Application No. 03 of 2008 in Customs Appeal No. 01 of 2008.2. The petitioner has challenged in the above appeal the order dated 26.10.2007 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jamnagar in Appeal No. 99 of 2007 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 75,89,375/- while finalizing the assessment in respect of the ship bought by the petitioner from sheriff of Mumbai in the auction proceedings. The assessment was initially done on provisional basis assessing the demand of basic customs duty of Rs. 13,24,825/- and additional duty of customs of Rs. 62,64,550/-. The provisional assessed bill of entry was appealed against by the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vadilal Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Guj)318
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench-B, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT:1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that disallowance under Section 37(3A) was required to be considered on the net amount and not the gross amount ?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the CIT(A) should have entertained the additional ground with regard to expenditure of Rs. 4,14,955 on account of payments made to the suppliers of skimmed milk, when the assessee had claimed the said amount for asst. yr. 1986-87 ?2. The assessment year is 1985-86 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 30th June, 1984. In the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the AO adopted the figure of Rs. 17,36,625 for applying the provisions of Section 37(3A) of the Act as being gross expenditure towards the advertisement, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arvindbhai Narottambhai (Huf)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: [2008]306ITR33(Guj); [2009]177TAXMAN68(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 (Appeals):Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing interest on borrowed funds at the rate of 4 per cent, and not at the rate of 7.5 per cent, for acquisition of preference shares?2. The assessment year is 1986-87. The relevant accounting period is samvat year 2041. The assessee claimed deduction of interest paid on borrowing of Rs. 17 lakhs and the rate of interest was 7.5 per cent. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same. The assessee succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the Revenue's appeal the Tribunal, vide order dated January 31, 1997, held that deduction of the amount worked out by applying 4 per cent., rate of interest would be allowable while disallowing the balance 3.5 per cent. For adopting th...
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service Vs. Budhabhai Atmaram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR489]; (2008)2GLR1341
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. HS Munshaw for the petitioner and Mr. BA Vaishnav, learned Advocate for the respondent.2. This Court has, by order dated 18.3.08, suggested to the Transport Service to pay the retirement benefits to the respondent workman considering the workman on duty during the interim period. Transport Service is prepared to accept the suggestion made by this Court but not prepared to pay the back wages for the interim period of about ten years. Learned Advocate Mr. BA Vaishnav for the workman is not agreeing to this suggestion because workman has not given consent to forego the back wages for interim period. In view of that, the matter has been taken up for hearing by this Court on merits.3. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner AMTS has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application No. 185 of 1997 in Reference (IT) No. 433 of 1992 dated 5.4.07 wherein the tribunal has rejected the...
Sanjay Hiralal Shah Vs. Hdfc Bank Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1491
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The applicant, original plaintiff [herein after referred to as the plaintiff] has approached this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 28/12/2004 passed by learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge, (S.D.), Vadodara, below exhibit-64 in Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003 preferred by the original defendant No. 7, respondent herein above, under provision of Order XXXVII Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the decree dated 15.09.2003 passed by 9th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara, in Special Summary Suit No. 202 of 2001 preferred by the plaintiff against Cherotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank, a co-operative bank, and others, including the present respondent i.e. HDFC Bank for recovery of Rs. 7,08,10,040 (Rs. Seven crore eight lacs ten thousand and forty only)2. Facts in brief giving rise to this Revision Application deserve to be set out as under.The original plaintiff runs his business in the name of Apex Chemicals an...
Patel Vinodbhai Manibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4613
D.N. Patel, J.1. Present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 17.1.2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 566 of 2007, whereby bail was granted to the applicant under Sub-Section 6 of Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been cancelled.2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain present application mainly for the following facts and reasons:(i) It appears from the facts of the case that present applicant is involved in the offence in connection with C.R. No. I 154 of 2006 registered with Dabhoda Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 406, 407 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.(ii) Aforesaid offence was registered with Dabhoda Police Station and he was arrested on 19.1.2007.(iii) It appears that upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet/chalan was filed on 12.2.2007 bef...
State of Gujarat Vs. Laxmansinh Chandrasinh Padhiyar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3843; (2008)3GLR2519
D.N. Patel, J.Rule. Learned Counsel Mr. B.B. Naik waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 25th July,2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 8, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No. 189 of 2007, whereby bail has been granted to the respondent in connection with the offence registered with Karjan Police Station bearing C.R. No. I 42 of 2007, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 417, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, mainly for the reason that charge-sheet/ challan has not been filed by the police within a period of sixty days and, therefore, bail has been granted to the respondent-accused, under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Against this judgment and award dated 25th July, 2007, the State has preferred this Criminal Revision Applicatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »