Gujarat Court July 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.
Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4023; (2008)3GLR2026
M.D. Shah, J. 1. At the outset, it may be noted that this appeal is taken up for final hearing today as the same was fixed for expeditious hearing by the Court (Coram: Akil Kuresh, J.) vide order dated 4-7-2008.1.1 The present appellant-Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana and one Mr. Survirsinh alias Suresh Amarsinh Gohil were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) (A) and (C) of he Electricity Act, 2003 by the learned Special Judge, Kheda at Nadiad which is at Exh.5 in Special Case (GEB) No. 59 of 2006. At the end of the trial, by judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2nd August, 2007, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, the present appellant-Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to suffer R.I. For two years and fine of Rs. 2,63,000/- in default, further R.I. for six months while the appellant- Survirsinh alias Suresh Amarsinh Gohil came to be acquitted. It is against this judgment and order of conv...
Ratilal Magabhai Vasava Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4016
Z.K. Saiyed, J.1. The present Appellant 'original accused in Sessions Case No. 250 of 1994 was charged and tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').2. The facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Maniben, wife of Budhabhai Bhailal Vasava was staying at her paternal house at village Mata Bhagod, Taluka Savli. She was married with Budhabhai Bhailalbhai, resident of Satnagar village, Taluka Savli, but, due to family dispute her husband went away to Madras and since last 12 months from the date of incident, she was staying with her parents. During the married life with her husband one son named Ravji, aged about 7 years and daughter Kamla @ Parul, aged about 4 years were born. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.6.1994 paternal uncle of the complainant was expired and for his funeral ceremony the complainant went to village Shikar Bhagol with her relativ...
Aarasuri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust Vs. Gemarji Magan Bhai Raval
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR659]
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Rule. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for respondent waives service of Rule. With the consent-of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.By this petition, the petitioner, Administrator of Aarasuri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner trust') Ambaji Temple has challenged an award dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 36/2008 (Old No, 101/87).2. It appears from perusal of the impugned award, that the petitioner trust had initiated disciplinary actions against 2 employees working as security: personnel, on the charge of eating meat in the premises (compound) of the templerOne of the two persons was a permanent employee working on the post of Jamadar and the other one was working as a guard on daily wage basis. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry and considering the gravity of action initially the! petitioner trust p...
Shantaben Pitambarbhai Vankar Vs. Jitendra Kumar Lakshmichand Shah and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1942
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. By way of this appeal the appellants, who are heirs of deceased, have challenged judgment and award dated 29.10.2007 of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Nadiad, whereby the case filed by the appellants was dismissed.As per the case of the appellant, late Pitambarbhai Virabhai was working as a driver with respondent No. 1 and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 750 and Rs. 20 as daily allowance. When the deceased met with an accident on 23.4.1988, he was 35 years. Considering the age of the deceased, claim of Rs. 1,50,000 with penalty and interest was claimed. Original opponent No. 1 filed his written statement before the Commissioner at Exh. 13. He contended that at the time of accident, he was not the owner of the truck and the respondent No. 3 was owner of the truck at that time. Respondent No. 1 had also filed application, Exh. 14 to delete him from the proceedings on the ground that opponent No. 3 was owner of the vehicle. Workmen's Compensation Commissione...
Darshanaben Wd/O Prakashbhai Ratilal Panchal (Dharva Parmar) and 2 ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj167
M.R. Shah, J.1. Appeal From Order No. 327 of 2007 is admitted.2. Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 and Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2,5,7 and 8.3. With the consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties, Appeal From Order is taken up for final hearing today.4. In the present Appeal From Order, the appellants herein ' original plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court No. 5, Ahmedabad dtd.16/7/2007 below notice of motion in dismissing the notice of motion mainly on the ground that the City Civil Court would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question in view of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act.5. The appellants herein original plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No. 1038 of 2004 in City Civil Court at Ahmedabad seekin...
Dhariyal Chemicals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(234)ELT208(Guj)
ORDER5. In view of the above, I hereby pass the following order:(i) The facility of monthly payment of excise duty by M/s. Dhariyal Chemicals, as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is ordered to be withdrawn and they are required to pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal of the goods with effect from 27.02.2008 to 26.05.2008.(ii) Payment of excise duty by utilisation of CENVAT credit as provided under Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, is ordered to be stopped with effect from 27.02.2008 to 26.05.2008. During this period, they are required to pay excise duty without utilising CENVAT credit. However, they are permitted to take CENVAT credit during this period which can be utilised for payment of duty with effect from 27.05.2008.6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 22.02.2008 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) by reiterating the facts narrated in the petition and also challenged t...
Reginol Director Guj. State Road Transport Corpo. Vs. Lilaben Wd/O Ram ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2677
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of appellants and learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Darji appearing on behalf of respondents in both the appeals.2. In these two appeals, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is challenging the common award passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in MAC Petition No. 636 of 2000 and in MAC Petition No. 637 of 2000 dated 2nd June 2006. In MACP No. 636 of 2000, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,19,000/- with 6% interest from the date of application and in MACP No. 637 of 2000, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 36,000/- with 6% interest from the date of application.3. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia is challenging both the awards raising contentions before this Court that looking to the age of deceased 33 years, multiplier 16 is on higher side and according to her submission, it must be a multiplier 13 which is reasonable, therefore, Tribunal has committed gross error in applying multiplier 16. She relied...
Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and 3 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR45
ORDERCriminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005 filed by the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Sessions Case No. 62 of 2004 stands dismissed.Accused No. 1-Ghusabhai Raisingbhai Chorasia, Accused No. 3- Bakuben w/o. Ghusabhai Chorasia and Accused No. 4- Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai are on bail during pendency of appeal vide order of this Court delivered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2715 of 2005 on 15th March, 2005. Bail Bonds of Accused No. 1-Ghusabhai Raisingbhai Chorasia, Accused No. 3- Bakuben w/o. Ghusabhai Chorasia and Accused No. 4- Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender to the trial Court to serve the sentences awarded to each of them within six weeks from today.Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence and Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005 preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal of the trail Court, both stands dismissed....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dineshchandra S. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Guj)247; [2009]317ITR391(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The CIT has filed this application seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment rendered on 27th April. 1998. in IT Ref. No. 132 of 1996. The judgment rendered by this Court on 27th April. 1998, is a common judgment in relation to IT Ref. Nos. 54 and 272 of 1993. 121 and 132 of 1996; 15, 19 and 49 of 1997 reported as CIT v. Kiranbhai H. Shelat and Anr. (1998) 147 CTR (Guj) 43--Ed.2. In the IT Ref. No. 132 of 1996, made at the instance of the Revenue following question of law was referred:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that incentive bonus earned by the assessee as Development Officer of LIC was part of salary within the ambit of Section 17 of the Act and no deductions on account of expenses were permissible?3. The reference was heard by the Division Bench of this Court on 27th April, 1998 and the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Though the common judgmen...
Vijalpore Municipality Through Its Chief Officer Vs. State of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj183
ORDER:GUJARAT MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1963:NO:KV-160-99-NPL-4598-1772-M : Whereas the VVF Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company) Vejalpore manufacturer of various Shaving Creams, Shampoos, Toilet Soap noodles and toilet soaps has expanded its manufacturing operations in the year 1995-96 and has represented to the State Government to give exemption, from octroi for the expanded capacity.AND WHEREAS on verification of the details on investment made by the Company for expanding its capacity it is found that the company has invested more than 50% in the land, buildings and plant and machinery for the expansion of its capacity of existing industrial undertaking and therefore, is entitled to be considered as 'New Industry'.NOW, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 99 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (Guj. XXXIV of 1964) the Government of Gujarat hereby makes the following order, namely:No octroi shall be levied from the VVF Limited Vejalpore, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »