Gujarat Court July 2008 Judgments
Narendrakumar Jayshankar Joshi Vs. General Manager, Panchmahal Distric ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR666]; (2009)ILLJ263Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner, who was at the relevant time, an Inspector in the respondent-co-operative bank has challenged, after 3 years, an order dated June 6,2005 passed by the controlling authority whereby the controlling authority, upon application by the present petitioner, has directed the respondent-employer to pay 75% of the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity and has also permitted the respondent-employer to retain, as deposit, the balance 25% amount.2. Aggrieved by the said order permitting the respondent-employer to retain the balance 25% of the amount payable towards the gratuity, the petitioner has preferred present petition after 3 years since the date of the order.It transpires that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, working as Inspector and on certain allegations a notice dated September 11, 2003 was issued against the petitioner. It further appears from the record that the respondent had initiated or was contemplating to con...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Gujarat State Investments Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Guj)201
K.A. Puj, J.1. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1990-91 proposing to formulate the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 16,06,194 made by the assessing officer on account of notional loss claimed by the assessee ?2. The appeal was admitted on 17-1-2003 and this Court 'has reformulated the substantial question of law:Is the assessee entitled to notionally compute the brokerage amount that would-be payable on the closing stock of debentures for working out the value of such closing stock ?3. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Vaibhabi Parikh for the assessee.4. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee company has shown losses in value of securities (being the difference between the net realisable...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar Exports and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(240)ELT355(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Considering scope of controversy the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. RULE. Learned Counsel for the respondents is directed to waive service.2. The petitioner has preferred this petition praying for following reliefs:13. In the above premises, the petitioners most respectfully pray as under:A. That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside decision of the second respondent conveyed to the petitioners vide letter F. No. V/Misc-4/2003-R dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure-'H') thereby directing the second respondent to forthwith return amount of Rs. 7.50 lakhs to the petitioners;B. That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondent No. 2 to pay compensation by way of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Aluminium Industries Private Limited Vs. Pankaj Extrusions Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas660(Guj); [2009]90SCL196(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner Company has filed this petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent Company on the ground that the respondent has failed to discharge its liabilities towards the petitioner despite the statutory notice having been served upon the respondent Company.2. The notice was issued by this Court on 17.4.2007. The notice was sent through Registered Post A.D. and the same was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. This Court has, therefore, passed further order on 8.5.2007 giving direct service to the petitioner. Over and above the direct service, the petitioner was permitted to affix notice at the conspicuous place of registered office of the Company. Thereafter, Mr. Navin K. Pahwa, learned advocate filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent Company.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company was supplying aluminum products to the respondent Company. The said raw material was used by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Heirs and Legal Representatives of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel Vs. Commis ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Guj)138
K.A. Puj, J.1. During the pendency of this reference before this Court, the applicant - assessee, namely, Shri Laxmanbhai S. Patel expired and hence, his heirs and legal representatives are brought on record vide order dated 09.07.2008 passed in Civil Application No. 142 of 2008 and they are pursuing this reference before this Court.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, Ahmedabad vide statement of case drawn in March 1997, referred to the following question of law for the assessment year 1985 - 86, at the instance of the assessee, for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,78,358/- in the hands of the assessee 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that there was a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 26...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Chloritech Industri ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(235)ELT17(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-revenue has proposed the following question:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that no interest as prescribed under the provisions of Section 11-AB of the Act can be recovered when the differential duty is paid on price variation?2. The facts briefly stated are that the respondent-assessee is manufacturing goods which are liable to duty of excise under The Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). It is the case of the appellant department that the respondent-assessee had issued supplementary invoices for rate difference on the basis of escalation clause in the purchase order and such supplementary invoices were issued between 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2004. That consideration to the tune of Rs. 1,90,89,420/- was received towards such supplementary invoices and admittedly, excise duty to the tune of Rs. 30,54,305/- has been paid voluntarily in discharge of legal obligation contained in Section 11A(2B) of the Act. That due...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanlal Joitaram Patel Vs. National Highways Authority of India and 3 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj181
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Ms.Avani Mehta, learned advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is served but not appeared. Mr. R.M. Chhaya, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 waives service of notice. Matter is finally heard.2. The only question to be considered is whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to invoke the bank guarantee in respect to another contract on the ground that there is breach committed by the petitioner in respect to contract for which separate bank guarantee is given.3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the contract agreement was arrived at between the petitioner and respondents on 15/2/2005 for maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa Section National High Way-14 for a period of 24 months. The said contract has come to an end on 15/2/2007. As per the contract, during the period when the contract was in operation, the petitioner had submitted two bank guarantees dated 10/1/2005 for the sum of Rs. 20,25,700/...
Tag this Judgment!Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. A.C.i.T.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)577
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all these Tax Appeals and since all these Tax Appeals are in the same assessee's case, namely, Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1994-95 they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. At the instance of the assessee, following substantial questions of law were formulated for the assessment year 1986/87, which is the first assessment year in point of time, for the consideration and determination of this Court:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in ignoring the ratio of binding decision of Supreme Court in the case of Akkamamba Textile Ltd. and Sivakami Mills Ltd. at : [1997]227ITR464(SC) (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in ignoring the ratio of binding decision of Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. at : [1966]60ITR52(SC) ?(iii) Whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Sercon Private Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Guj)479
K.A. Puj, J.1. All these four Tax appeals are filed by the different assessees under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1992-93 proposing substantial question of law arising out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Tax Appeal No. 288 of 2002 was admitted by this Court on 13.09.2002 and remaining three Tax appeals i.e. Tax Appeal Nos. 356, 357 & 358 of 2002 were admitted by this Court on 29.10.2002. In all the four Tax appeals, similar substantial question of law is formulated for the consideration and determination of this Court, which is as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not holding that while computing long term capital gains, deductions under Section 48(2) are required to be allowed before deduction under Section 54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Since the facts are identical in all the four Tax appeals, the relevant facts are taken from Tax Appeal No. 288 of 2002 for conve...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Kanubhai Laxmanbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ41Guj
ORDERA.L. Dave, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by an oral order passed in Special Civil Application No. 12092/2000 on December 2, 2005 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant.The said petition arose out of an order passed by Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 281/1984 on April 19, 2000.The respondent herein, who is a workman, came to be retrenched by the appellant on August 13, 1983. He, therefore, raised the dispute and ultimately a reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court did not find any fault with the retrenchment but found that provisions contained in Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act were committed breach of and, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondent by the impugned judgment.Learned single Judge also upheld the same and hence this appeal.2. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal Nanavati appearing for Nanavati Associates submitted that the appeal is mainly canvassed on the ground that the entry of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »