Gujarat Court September 2008 Judgments
Rajkumar Hariram Gameti Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR143
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 21/6/2003 rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fact Track Court, Modasa [for short 'Ld. Trial Judge'] in NDPS Case No. 2/2000. The Ld. Trial Judge was pleased to record conviction of the appellant - accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 8, 21[c] read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [for short 'NDPS Act'] and the appellant accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 lac with usual default stipulation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the original accused preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under:2.1. Mr. D N Oza, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad, received an information on August 31, 1998 that a person named Kantiji Fulaji Rangot was to come in the evening of September 1, 1998 near Meghraj ...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR33
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In this reference, following question has been referred to the Full Bench:In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Ors. v. Amjad Ali and Ors. : 1999CriLJ5060 , when a person is ordered to pay maintenance under Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 fails without sufficient cause to comply with such order, whether the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 is empowered to sentence such person to imprisonment for a term exceeding one month.2. Factual background leading to the question is as follows:Special Criminal Application No. 897 of 2008 has been filed by one Rama Muru Pariya, through Jail against the judgment and order dated 15th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhalia, Dist: Jamnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 141 of 2007. By the said decision, the learned Judge was pleased to modify the order da...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Uti Bank Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: [2009]319ITR357(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following question:Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,18,10/500 made on account of excess depreciation?2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. She has reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year. However, learned standing Counsel could not point out as to how the facts in the present case are different from the facts noted by this court in the case of CIT v. Pinnacle Finance Ltd. : [2004] 268 ITR 395 where the High Court has followed the apex court's decision in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance P. Ltd. : [1998] 231 ITR 308.3. As can be seen from the record that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently found that ownership of assets in the hands of the assessee-lessor is not disputed and delivery of assets on Sep...
Tag this Judgment!G.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Madhusudanbhai Pushkarrai Dave
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2128
J.R. Vora, J.1. This First Appeal is preferred by the original opponent No. 1 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and opponent No. 2 Valimahmad Umerkhan, Driver of original Opponent No. 1 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award delivered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxilliary), Baroda, on 30th of August, 2006, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2064 of 2007.2. According to facts of the case, present opponent i.e. original claimant Madhusudhanbhai Pushkarrai Dave, preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2064 of 1997 on the facts that he had been to Ahmedabad from Baroda and for returning to Baroda, he reached near S.T. Bus stand at Gitamandir, Ahmedabad. Appellant No. 2 - Driver had parked the bus bearing No. GJ-18-V-733 in the ST Bus Stand. This was the bus from Radhanpur to Surat and was at Ahmedabad Bus Stand for taking passengers for onward journey till Surat. The original applicant - respondent herein attempted to board in ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator of Commercial Ahmedabad Mi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas705(Guj); (2009)1GLR420; (2009)IILLJ690Guj
D.A. Mehta, J.1. All the appeals have been taken up for hearing and disposal together as admittedly they arise out of common order made by the Company Court in Official Liquidator Report No. 12 of 2006 with Company Application No. 575 of 2006 decided on 28th March, 2008. As the parties have referred to the documents from papers of O.J. Appeal No. 142 of 2008, the said Appeal has been treated as the lead matter and the brief facts necessary for the present, have been taken from the said Appeal. The appellant of O.J. Appeal No. 142 of 2008 is State Bank of India, a secured creditor of the Company (in liquidation), Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Company Ltd. The appellant of O.J. Appeal No. 113 of 2008 is the Textile Labour Association, while O.J. Appeal No. 137 of 2008 has been filed by the Official Liquidator.2. The company (in liquidation) was ordered to be wound up on 11.10.1989 vide order made in Company Petition No. 117 of 1989. It appears that prior thereto on 31st August, 1976 the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Dhrumit M. Patel and ors. Vs. C.U. Shah Medical College and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj1
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the district-wise reservation of seats adopted by a Charitable Trust, running an unaided medical college, violates Section 6-B of the Gujarat Act 3 of 2008, read with Rule 7-B of the Rules.2. Saurashtra Medical Centre was established in the year 1972 as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is having the status of a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It was established inter alia for the purpose of undertaking activities in the field of medical and para-medical education with the area of operation spanning to Saurashtra region in the State of Gujarat. Persons of the rank and repute, predominantly hailing from Surendranagar District of the Saurashtra Region of the State of Gujarat were instrumental in setting up the said Medical Centre. With a view to fulfilling its avowed objects, Medical Centre established a self-financed medical college in th...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Keshavlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR568
C.K. Buch, J.1. The appellant-orig.convict has preferred present appeal under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th October 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, in Special Case No. 6 of 1986, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 420, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two yea...
Tag this Judgment!Nareshbhai Vishnubhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR734
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State in each of the applications. As all these applications are by the co-accused of complaint being C.R. No. I-5 of 2005 registered with A.T.S. Police Station, Ahmedabad and arise out of same offence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Misc. Criminal Application No. 12420 of 2007 is filed by the applicant-Nareshbhai Vishnubhai Chauhan-original-accused No. 13, the then P.S.I. - Anti-Terrorist Squad (A.T.S.), Ahmedabad of complaint being C.R. No. I-5 of 2005 registered with A.T.S. Police Station, Ahmedabad under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with aforesaid offence.Misc. Criminal Application No. 13756 of 2007 is filed by the original-accused No. 11 - Santram Chandrabhan Sharma, Police Constable-S.R.P. Group - 12, Gandhinagar for releasing him on bail in connection with aforesaid c...
Tag this Judgment!Umiya Pipe Private Limited a Company Incorporated Under and 2 ors. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR312
M.R. Shah, J.1. RULE. Ms. Falguni Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1-State and Shri R.C. Jani, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the application is taken up for final hearing today.3. The short but an interesting question of law posed for consideration of this Court is which date would be the relevant date for starting the limitation for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants-original accused have prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 749/2007 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad filed by respondent No. 2-original complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiabl...
Tag this Judgment!Roshanlal S. JaIn and ors. (Aop) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)38; [2009]309ITR174(Guj); [2009]176TAXMAN95(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, an AOP, has preferred this petition challenging:(i) the calculation of interest and the notice of demand for the three assessment years under consideration as bad in law to the extent there is an overcharging of interest;(ii) Section 234A of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) is ultra vires to the extent the said section provides for charging of interest even after the payment of tax;(iii) Sections 234A and 234B of the Act are ultra vires to the extent both the provisions charge interest for the same period making the petitioner liable to interest @ 48 per cent.2. Assessment years in question are 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, the respective accounting periods being financial years ended on 31st March, 1991, 31st March, 1992 and 31st March, 1993 respectively. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent authority') is the AO having jurisdiction over the petitioner assessee. Assessment orders for the three years in question were passed by the AO a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »