Gujarat Court May 2008 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Ashokbhai Kuberbhai Solanki and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: [2008]2ITR1781(Guj)
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. This appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara [for short 'Ld. Judge'] on 30/6/2005 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2000. The Ld. Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment, acquitted both the respondents herein, who were original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] as well as punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act.2. The prosecution case, in nut shell, is as under:2.1. Complainant Maganbhai Fulabhai Desai was serving in Plastic Surgery Department of S S G Hospital, Vadodara and was residing with his family members in the area called Indirabaug in the city of Vadodara. He has two daughters named Hansaben and Anjuben. His daughter Hansaben had be...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and 7 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2057
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Someone who thinks logically is a nice contrast to the real world. Normally that is what is required of a judge. While adjudicating a lis a judge is expected not to fall prey to over simplified generalisations made on basis of cited, but inapplicable, precedents. The problem of stereotyping is that it makes particular into the general, often leading to wholly misleading conclusions.2. This group of petitions has been heard by the Larger Bench constituted in compliance with directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.02.2008 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 21397-21399 21397-21399 of 2007 which reads as under:Transfer Petition (c) Nos. 513-515 of 2007 and 557-564 of 2007 are taken on Board. These special leave petitions have been filed against the interim order(s) passed by the High Court of Gujarat refusing stay to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Borsad Urban Co-operativ ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas480(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, Gujarat Small Industries Corporation Ltd., has filed this petition under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the petitioner-company and for appointment of the official liquidator attached to this Court as the liquidator of the company with all powers under the Act.2. This petition was admitted on September 15, 2006 and the notice of hearing of the petition was directed to be advertised in The Times of India (English daily), Ahmedabad edition, and Gujarat Samachar (Gujarati daily), Ahmedabad edition, to be published on or before September 22, 2006. The publication of the notice of this petition in the Government Gazette was dispensed with.3. Pursuant to this, advertisement was published in the newspapers as : directed by this Court and affidavit to this effect alongwith the newspapers' clippings are produced on the record of this case.4. During the pendency of this petition Company Application No. 577 of -2006 is filed by Borsad Urban...
Tag this Judgment!Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2635; LC2009(1)168
K.A. Puj, J.1. The plaintiff, namely, Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2486 of 2007 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, distributors, stockists from manufacturing, marketing and using the impugned design registered under No. 186992 in Class 28 on 16.10.2001 in respect of D Shape Tablet and/or any tablet, which is having similar shape and configuration or material reproduction of the plaintiff's registered design. The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from printing, publishing, using, marketing, coping or imitating the impugned design of tablet, its drawings and parts thereof and restraining them from committing infringement of the design of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for direction to the defendants to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the damage caused to the plaintiff on account of infringement of the p...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. O.L. of Kengold (India) Ltd. (In Liqn.) and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas625(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all these Company Applications as well as Official Liquidator's report and since all these matters are heard together, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Company Application No. 266 of 2008 is filed by State of Gujarat through Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ahmedabad praying for review of the order dated 18.01.2008 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 554 of 2007 along with Company Application No. 555 of 2007 in Company Petition No. 261 of 2004 and for reviewing the said order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and further praying to hold that the tax dues payable to the Commissioner of Commercial Tax (earlier Sales Tax) have priority over all other dues in view of the said dues being crown dues which would have priority over all creditors including Secured and Unsecured Creditors under the Companies Act, 1956.3. Company Application No. 83 of 2008 is f...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Ashwinkumar Ranchodbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3662; (2008)2GLR1748
J.R. Vora, J.1. The State has preferred instant Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment and Order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana ( Mr. A.N. Vakil), on 20th of November,2004, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2004, whereby the present respondent, being accused of the said Sessions Case, came to be acquitted for the offences charged against him under Sections 302, 451 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Learned APP Dipen A Desai for the State and learned Advocate Mr. F.B. Brahmbhatt for the respondent were heard in detail in respect of this Appeal.3. As per the prosecution case, deceased in the incident, happens to be uncle of accused - respondent herein. Deceased and the accused families were residing in adjoining houses. On 15th of June, 2004, there was a rainfall, and on account of rainfall, the accused was digging a ditch to prevent flowing water and, therefore, the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Ashok K. Jha and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR526]; (2008)IIILLJ1027Guj
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Appeal was heard by us in the month of February. We had the benefit of the able assistance of learned Counsel Mr. V.B. Patel. Before we could deliver this judgment, unfortunately the learned Counsel has passed away. 2. The Appeal is heard extensively. With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeal is finally decided by this judgment.3. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No. 21828/2006. The appellant, Garden Silk Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Mills'), is an employer within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). The respondents are the employees of the Mills. The matter at dispute is the orders of transfer dated 4th May, 1996. By the said orders the Mills transferred its employees then working in its Crimping depar...
Tag this Judgment!icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashaben Gautambhai Vala a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-14-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ2814; AIR2008Guj158
D.H. Waghela, J.1. All these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), having raised a common issue, they are heard and disposed by this common judgment. The appeals are preferred from the orders made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in applications all of which were filed under Section 140 of the Act and were allowed. The appellant-insurer has raised the sole common issue and objection that the injured victim of the accident in each case was a pillion rider of the motorcycle involved in the accident and, therefore, the insurer was not legally liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation. In each case, the accident had happened in the year 2006 or 2007 and, therefore, the new India Motor Tariff which superseded the India Motor Tariff in force upto 30.6.2002 was applicable. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, relying upon recent judgment in Yallwwa and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2007 617, submitted that the insurer was enti...
Tag this Judgment!Choksi Yashvantkumar Natvarlal Vs. Vijapur Navyuvak Sahakari Shakhvali ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2397
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Patel learned Counsel appears for respondent No. 1 and waives service of notice of rule and Ms. Patel learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 waives service of notice of rule.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matters are finally heard today.3. The only question which arise for consideration in the present petitions is that as to whether it is required for the liquidator to hold an inquiry under Section 110(h) of the Act, if the liability is denied by the party against whom the demand notice has been issued.4. The short facts of the case appears to be that respondent No. 1-Society is ordered to be liquidated, and the liquidator is holding charge of the affairs of the society. As per respondent No. 1-Society the loans were taken by the petitioners concerned, and therefore, liquidator had issued the notice calling upon them to make payment of the outstanding amount as per the record of the society. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Crown Products
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2008
Reported in: [2008]304ITR106(Guj); [2009]177TAXMAN266(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(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the Revenue.Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order made by the CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim for depreciation and investment allowance at the higher rate on proportionate basis when the provisions of Rule 5 had been deleted with effect from 2.4.1987 ?2. The assessee, a registered firm claimed depreciation for a period commencing from 3.11.1986 to 31.3.1988 in relation to Assessment Year 1988-89. On 26.3.1991, the Assessing Officer framed assessment and in relation to claim of depreciation stated; 'during the year the assessee has claimed depreciation at a higher rate on proportionate basis. Proportionate deduction is allowable for A.Y. 1989=90 only. Therefore, assessee's depreciation claim will be allowed after revision.'3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »