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.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2009[13]STR493
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since a common issue is involved in all these three writ petitions, the same are taken up for admission hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.2. All the three petitions were called out in the first session and also in the second session. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in all the three matters has not remained present in any of the two calls.3. The petitioner has challenged the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad dated 30th May, 2007 in Application No. E/COD/56/07, E/S/55607, refusing to condone the delay of more than 800 days in preferring the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, the petitioner has challenged other two orders of the Tribunal passed in other two appeals.4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is inter alia engaged in the manufacturing of clinker and cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Ta...
Krushnakant Kantilal Pancholi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR368
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Ms. Falguni Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State.2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner-original accused No. 2 for an appropriate order to release the passport of the petitioner bearing registration No. A-4217459 and permit the petitioner to go United State of America to attend her daughter, who according to the petitioner is not keeping good health.3. In support of ill-health of the daughter, the petitioner has relied upon one communication produced at Annexure-B.4. Ms. Jayshree Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2008 in the case of Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I., dated 24-1-2008, reported in : 2008CriLJ1599 in support of her submission that such a condition directing to surrender the passport, cannot be imposed, as the powers to impound the passport are only with t...
Gujarat Maritime Board Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)390
K.A. Puj, J.1. Rule. Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the Revenue.2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dt. 28th Aug., 2008 Annex. A and also praying for directions to the respondent not to recover the demand till the stay petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad.3. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing Counsel with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned standing Counsel appearing on caveat on behalf of the Revenue and perused the memo of the petition as well as the affidavtt-in-reply filed by Mr. D.C. Mishra, Asstt. CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar.4. In view of the urgency and limited indulgence sought for, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself.5. Since the appeal and stay application are pending before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad, this C...
State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Pandya Vipulkumar Dineshchandra and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj12
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Jani learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for private respondent, and Mr. Anjariya learned, counsel waives service of notice of rule for the Chief Information Commissioner.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.3. The only question to be considered, is whether the Chief Information commissioner, after recording conclusion that the information is to be provided, and certain informations were wrong, could exercise power for directing transferring authority to revoke the transfer order or not?4. The facts of the case appear to be that certain informations were demanded under Right to Information Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The matter was processed at different level, and ultimately, the order came to be passed by the respondent No. 2, Chief Information Commissioner in Complaint No. 701 of 06-07 where he concluded as under:Having regard to the above, the Co...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late Shrimant F.P. Gaekwad Th ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Guj)423; [2009]313ITR192(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. All these five tax appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 27A of the WT Act, 1957, raising the substantial question of law for determination and consideration of this Court. In tax appeal No. 598 of 2008 following substantial question of law is raised:Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CWT(A) whereby deleting the penalty levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, without considering the provisions of Section 19(1) of the WT Act?2. The Tribunal has passed the common order dealing with the penalties under Sections 15B, 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957. The assessment years involved are asst. yrs. 1968-69, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1983-84 and 1984-85.3. Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2008 is in respect of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) for the asst. yr. 1984-85. Tax appeal No. 599 of 2008 is in respect of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) for the asst. yr. 1983-84. Tax appeal No. 600 of 2008 is in respect of penalty under Sectio...
Jayman R. Shah Vs. Chime Electronics Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR259
C.K. Buch, J.1. The petitioner Shri Jayman R. Shah, Proprietor of S.J. Shah & Company has filed this petition under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying that the respondent Chime Electronics Limited be ordered to be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act and this Court may appoint Official Liquidator attached to this Court as Official Liquidator of Chime Electronics Limited. It is also prayed that the Official Liquidator attached to this Court also be appointed as Provisional Liquidator of the said Company and he may be directed to take over possession of assets and affairs of the company pending this petition. But when the Court has decided to hear the petition finally, there is no need to pass any such interim order.2. When this petition was listed for admission hearing in the month of June, 2007, the Court decided to issue notice vide order dated 19th June, 2007 making it returnable on 23rd July, 2007. Even after service, nobody cared to a...
Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)138
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming addition of Rs. 7 lacs as disclosed in statement under Section 132(4) of the Act but retracted thereafter?2. During the pendency of this reference before this Court the assessee expired and hence his legal heirs are brought on record vide order dt. 9th July, 2008, in Civil Appln. No. 143 of 2008. The assessment year in question is asst. yr. 1989-90. The assessee is a partner of M/s Chokshi Kasturchand Dalaji & Sons. A search under Section 132 was conducted on the premises of the said firm and the partners thereof including the assessee on 4th Nov., 1988. A statement of the assessee under Section 132(4) was recorded and during the course of the statement, the assessee made a disclosure of Rs. 7 lacs as follows:Unaccounted investment in house property Rs. 4...
Sudhirbhai Nagindas Doshi Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj38
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. Rule. Mr. Sandeep N. Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-Bank.2. The petitioner herein has filed this petition seeking the following relief:Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to act and abide by letter dated 21-4-2008, by which it was communicated to the present petitioner that the respondent-Bank has decided to accept the payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- in three equal monthly instalments.3. This Court on 3rd July 2008 has issued notice and granted ad interim relief.4. In response to the notice issued by this Court one, Shri Sunil Amritlal Shah, Chief Manager of the respondent-Bank has filed affidavit in reply and against that the petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder.5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-Bank has valued the property, which is a residential flat and as per the valuation of the respondent-bank, the val...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›