Gujarat Court February 2009 Judgments
Mahendrasinh Shanabhai Chauhan and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1647
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, a doctor at Primary Health Centre, along with three other accused persons, have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to set aside order dated 17-11-2008 made below application Exh. 7 in Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 2008 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand. By that impugned order in the revision application filed by the original complainant, the order dated 12-3-2008 of learned J.M.F.C. rejecting the prayer for ordering investigation by registering an F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was set aside and straightaway summons were ordered to be issued against all the five persons accused in the original complaint. That order was challenged mainly on the ground that learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction and power to straightaway order issuance of summons in a revision application under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the original com...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Vs. Gitaben Saitansinh Rajput and 5 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1348
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. DB Mehta on behalf of appellant Insurance Company.2. The appellant insurance company has challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal main at Gandhinagar in MACP No. 1876/2004 vide exh 52 dated 20/6/2008. The claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,04,500/- with 9% interest in favour of respondent claimants.3. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta raised contention before this Court that claims Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding compensation in favour of respondent claimants because there was no vehicular accident occurred on the date of incident. He submitted that claims Tribunal has not appreciated contention of appellant that death of husband of respondent No. 1 had taken place not due to vehicular accident, but he was murdered by somebody else and his dead body was found on driver seat of Truck. Therefore, death of deceased has not occurred due to involvement or use of any vehicle.4. He also submitted that claiman...
Tag this Judgment!Guj. Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Guj)554; [2009]314ITR14(Guj); [2009]183TAXMAN317(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. RULE. Learned Counsel for the respondent-department is directed to waive service. Tax Appeals have already been admitted vide order dated 20.09.2007 by formulating the following substantial question of law:Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in dismissing the Appeal of the revenue on the ground that approval of Committee of Dispute was not obtained?2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application is a Public Sector Undertaking of Government of Gujarat established in 1963. The appellant, in all the four appeals, is the Commissioner of Income-tax. The petition and the tax-appeals are taken up for hearing together as the controversy involved in all the matters is one and the same and arises out of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' (the Tribunal) dated 31.01.2006 in appeals filed both by revenu...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Anil Jagtap-executive Secretary-dastak Vs. T. Series Super Casse ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1121
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Petitioner, claiming to be a human right activist, has approached this Court with this public interest litigation so as to restrain the respondents from exhibiting the film titled 'Slumdog Millionaire' in the various cinema houses in the State or any other audio/video channels, CDs., D.V.Ds. or any other means of display or making any advertisement for sale of the film and also for other reliefs. When the matter came up for admission, we directed Shri Harin Raval, Additional Solicitor General of India to get instructions from the Censor Board with regard to various allegations made in the petition. Learned Counsel made submissions on the basis of instructions received by him from the Censor Board.2. Shri C.M. Ankolekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that film titled 'Slumdog Millionaire' was produced by two foreign nationals, on a theme written by another foreign national. Film was picturised in the slums of Dharavi in the city of Mum...
Tag this Judgment!Kirandevi Bansal Vs. D.G.M., Small Industries Development Bank of Indi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj100
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question, we have, been called upon to decide on a reference made by the learned Single Judge, is 'whether the time-limit of one week provided in Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act') for communicating the non-acceptance of the representation/objections made by the borrower in response to a notice issue under Sub-section (2) of Section 13, is mandatory or directory?2. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4045 of 2007 took the view that the same is a mandatory requirement, and non-compliance of that mandatory requirement within one week of the receipt of the representation/objections filed by the borrower would vitiate the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. When this case came up for hearing before another Judge, learned Judge took...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Asstt.) Vs. the Garden Silk Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR720(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on 19.07.2000, the following substantial question of law was framed by the High Court:Is profit on cancellation of forward exchange contract a capital receipt or a revenue receipt ?2. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the Court feels that the controversy between the parties is best reflected by the following reformulated substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 68,66,673/- received by the assessee upon cancellation of forward foreign exchange contract was a capital receipt?3. The Assessment Year in question is 1993-94, relevant accounting period being Financial Year ended on 31.03.1993. During course of assessment proceedings Under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the Assessing Officer having noted the fact of assessee having received sum of Rs. 68,66,673/- on cancellation of forward foreign ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Kashuben Narottambhai and anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Offi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1421
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned A.G.P. waives service of rule for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nilay Anjaria waives service of rule for respondent No. 2 - G.I.D.C, Mehsana.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.2. The petitioners claim to be the heirs of Patel Narottambhai Joitaram. It appears that upon acquisition of the land in question in Patan District, Patel Narottambhai Joitaram filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 82 of 2002 before the District Court, Patan. During pendency of the said Reference, Patel Narottambhai Joitaram expired, as is being stated by the petitioner. However, the petitioners did not make any application for being brought on the record of the Reference Case. The Reference Court, therefore, disposed of the said Reference along with the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 66 to 91 of 2002 and other companion matters by judgment and award dated 21-2-2007 by which the amount of compensation was enh...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Neo Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: [2010]321ITR313(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. On 24/4/2000 the Court admitted the appeal by formulating following substantial question of law:Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that when the assessee transferred its business assets to Nirma Chemical Works and S.K. Family Trust by three installments without any consideration, capital gain was not leviable as also balancing charge under Section 41(2) was not imposable?2. The Assessment Year in question is 1984-1985, the relevant previous year being calendar year 1983. The Assessee trust became a partner in a partnership firm constituted on 16/1/1982, whereby the Assessee was having 60 % share and the remaining 40 % share was held equally at 20% each by two other persons, namely S.K. Patel Family Trust and Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. With effect from 1/1/1983, by virtue of Retirement Deed dated 5/1/1983, Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., retired and on settlement of accounts, as mutually agreed, land with superstructure valued at ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshbhai Virji Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2775
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal arises against the Judgment and the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 62/01, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has imposed sentence for life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 500/-.2. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned APP declared before the Court that the accused is absconding since 23.07.2004. He has also placed on record the Jail report received by him. Under these circumstances, the accused-appellant is reported absconding by the learned APP.3. In normal circumstances, if the appellant-accused is not represented through the lawyer, the Court may proceed to examine the merits of the matter. However, such situation may arise if the presence of the accused is secured, may be by releasing him on bail or he may be in the custody. Neither situation exist in the present case. The learned APP drew the attention o...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Premchand Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1774
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of England, has invoked the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for pressing the prayer to set aside the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 45, Kurla, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 406 read with Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. While admitting the petition by a detailed oral order dated 21-8-2008, stay of further proceedings and investigation in connection with M.C.R. No. 2 of 2005 and Criminal Case No. 18/I&R;/2005 pending before the Court in Mumbai, was granted and Rule was made returnable on 10-9-2008. On 10-9-2008, respondent No. 2 had appeared through Advocates and filed affidavit-in-reply. The hearing was adjourned because Court time was over. Thereafter, on 22-9-2008, in the teeth of opposition on behalf of respondent No. 2, adjournment was sought and granted on the basis of sick note of learned Counsel Mr. Anil S. Dave with the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »