Gujarat Court September 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.
Divya Vasant Desai Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR495
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Almaula, learned Counsel for the respondent waives notice of Rule.2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.3. The short facts of the case appears to be that late Shri Vasant J. Desai had opened a PPF A/c on 05.03.1989 with the respondent Bank and at the relevant point of time, Mrs. Kiranben, who was the wife of late Shri Vasant J.Desai was shown as the nominee. On 30.06.1989, on account of the death of Mrs. Kiranben, her name was deleted as the nominee. It further appears that simultaneously, on 30.06.1989, the name of three persons were included as the nominee, viz. Vanilaben Jayantilal Desai, Anjana Chandrakant Majmudar & Roshni Mohanprasad Majmudar. It appears that thereafter, late Shri Vasant J. Desai, on 13.09.1991, got married with Mrs.Divyaben and on the same day, her nomination is shown as entered in the passbook of PPF account. Shri Vasant J.Desai expired on 22.04.2008. The petitioner whose ...
Charan Bharat Kumar Takhatsinh Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1056]
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Rule. Shri K.D. Pandya, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for respondents. With the consent of the parties rule is fixed forthwith.The petitioner-workman has preferred this petition assailing the order of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated 4.1.2008 rejecting Reference (LCA) No. 1258 of 2005. The workman had to raise an industrial dispute as his services were terminated orally on 30.6.2001. The Competent Authority therefore recorded failure in conciliation and referred the matter for adjudication to the competent Court wherein the same came to be registered as Reference (LCA) No. 1258 of 2005. The workman filed statement of claim and the opponents also filed their written statement raising various issues. The Labour Court has framed very general issue and after recording the rival contentions decided that the reference deserves to be rejected and accordingly rejected on 4.1.2008. The same is impugned in this petition.2. Shri Mankad for the workman conten...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakhabhai Polabhai Serva and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1057]
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10th February, 2004, passed in Workmen (N.F.) No. 6/2003 by the Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Junagadh.The case of the appellant is that he was a driver and was driving Rickshaw (Chhakda) owned by respondent No. 2 and he was being paid Rs. 5000/- per month. According to him on 12.1.2003 he met with an accident during the course of employment and sustained injuries. Therefore, the aforesaid claim application came to be filed wherein he was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,91,424/- which is challenged in this appeal.2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the number of the vehicle was not disclosed by the injured alleged employee. It was also not disclosed in the First Information Report. He submitted that the owner has another Chhakda (delivery van) which was insured and the vehicle involved in the accident was not the insured vehicle. He has further...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fag Precision Bearing Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN27(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This Reference at the instance of revenue has raised the following question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in modifying the orders under Section 154 for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92?2. The assessment years in question are 1990-91 and 1991-92. For both the years, unabsorbed investment allowance relatable to assessment years 1982-83 to 1989-90 was excluded by virtue of provisions of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The Assessing Officer accepted the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and no prima facie adjustment was made. Subsequently, on 31-8-1992 orders were framed under Section 154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer placing reliance on Section 115J(2) of the Act as well as CBDT Circular No. 495 and the Assessing Officer disallowed unabsorbed investment allowance to the extent such amount was allowed to be carried forward and set off while computing the income...
Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.L. Rungta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)584; [2009]316ITR282(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 herein, a limited company, has challenged the action of the respondent authorities, more particularly order dt. 31st Dec, 1992 made by respondent No. 1 under Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), and intimations dt. 8th July, 1992 under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act issued by respondent No. 2, and orders dt. 22nd Sept., 1992 under Section 154 of the Act made by respondent No. 2.2. The assessment years in question are 1990-91 and 1991-92. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2, by making disallowance of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance relatable to asst. yrs. 1988-89 and 1989-90 by way of prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act for the two years under consideration, has acted without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act. That the returns which were filed on 20th Dec, 1990 and 30th Dec, 1991 respectively for the two assessment years claiming set off of unab...
Jivanbhai Vithalbhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR646
A.L. Dave, J.1. The appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot by judgment and order dated 29th January, 2003 in Sessions Case No. 115 of 1999. The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case, in brief, can be stated thus:2.1 The first informant Ramaben Dhirajbhai and her husband Dhirajbhai Shamjibhai Chavda were engaged in embroidery work while staying at Rajkot. Since, the business was not going on well, they thought of consulting the appellant-accused, who was also working as a priest, besides serving in Postal Department and staying at Jetpur. P.W. 2 - Dhirajbhai Shamjibhai, therefore, contacted Shamjibhai Karshanbhai to get in touch with the appellant, who, in turn, introduced Dhirajbhai to the appellant. ...
Geeta Prints Ltd. Vs. Falcon Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas146(Guj); [2009]89SCL309(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal challenges order dated 11-12-2006 made in Company Petition No. 240 of 2004 whereby the petition filed by respondent herein (original petitioner) has been admitted against the appellant herein (original respondent) and an order made for publication of advertisement. Hereinafter, for sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their respective description in the petition.2. The petitioner preferred Company Petition No. 240 of 2004 claiming that an amount of Rs. 11,04,332, comprised of principal sum of Rs. 7,62,500 plus interest to the tune of Rs. 3,41,820 was due and payable by the respondent company to the petitioner. A further sum of Rs. 6,61,100 was also claimed as being recoverable towards 'C' form liabilities. The petitioner made the claim on the basis of invoices available at page Nos. 12 to 46 of the Company Petition. According to the petitioner, on 3-3-2004 the petitioner had confirmed the accounts and hence there was no question of a...
Commissioner of Income-tax-ii Vs. Shailesh Rasiklal Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-2008
Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN270(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-revenue has proposed the following two questions:[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,55,685 made under Section 68 and as confirmed by the CIT(A)?[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 made in respect of unaccounted investment and as confirmed by the CIT(A)?2. The assessment year in question is 2003-04. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,55,685 and in relation to this the appellant has stated as under:The assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 58,500 on 8-4-2002 without having cash balance on hand and further deposited a sum of Rs. 5,50,000 on 1-8-2002, whereas cash on hand was only Rs. 3,52,815. Since the assessee could not furnished details regarding the source of these cash deposits, an amount of Rs. 2,55,685 (Rs. 58,500 + Rs. 1,97,185) was added to the total income of the assessee.3. Admittedly, the aforesaid addition w...
Commissioner of Income-tax-i Vs. Micro Melt (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN35(Guj)
ORDERB.N. 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 passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,33,500 made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act as explained cash credits?2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. She has reiterated the reasons which prompted the Assessing Officer to make addition of Rs. 8,33,500.3. Admittedly, for assessment year 1996-97 the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 8,33,500 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')- The assessee carried the matter in Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and succeeded. When revenue filed Appeal before the Tribunal the addition was deleted by recording following findings:Section 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and the materials available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has treated the cash credits from 9 depositors...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1118]; (2009)1GLR361
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The appellant has invoked Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to challenge the oral judgment dated 29-9-2006 of learned single Judge, whereby the original petition of respondent No. 1 herein was allowed and the Union of India was directed to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, as envisaged by Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further directed that ad-interim order dated 4th August, 2006, by which the appellant was restrained from changing conditions or terminating services of the workmen concerned, shall operate during the subsistence of contract between the appellant and the contractors concerned.2. The original petitioner-Trade Union of workmen, had, in the original petition, challenged the order dated 29-6-2006 of the Government refusing to refer the dispute as not fit for adjudication on the ground that the workmen in respect of whom dispute was raised were not appointed by the management of the appellant. It was case of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »