Gujarat Court February 2009 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Manek Centre Jamnagar Vs. Cargo Motors Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ2771; (2009)2GLR974
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for appellant insurance company in these two appeals.2. By filing these appeals, appellant has challenged award made by MACT Jamnagar in Claim Case No. 16/07 and 49/07 dated 30th August, 2008 wherein claims tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,35,000.00 and Rs. 7,02,000.00 respectively with 9% interest thereon in favour of claimants for the accident which occurred on 30th December, 2006 wherein two persons died, one Dosmohamad Jusabbhai Sodha and Amad Dosmohmad Movar and third person received injury.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati raised contention before this Court that driver of offending truck was not joined as a party in claim petitions filed by claimants. He submitted that driver is necessary party and because of negligence on the part of driver, vicariously, owner is becoming liable and insurance company has to indemnify owner, therefore, according to him, in absence of driver, question of negligence cannot be e...
Pappu Ramsevak Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2059
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2001, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentence of life-imprisonment has been imposed upon the accused-appellant.2. It appears that as per the prosecution case, on 16-2-2001 at about 9.30 in the night, the complainant and his wife were at their residence, watching T.V. At that time, his brother Umang in a drunken condition came to his residence and told him that he had dispute with Pappu and the said Pappu had given threat of killing him. The deceased took out Katar/knife from the idol of Kodiyar Temple and at that time the complainant took away the Katar/knife and locked his brother deceased Umang in the room. Thereafter the complainant went to enquire about the dispute. At that time his friend Gopal informed him that the dispute was going on betwe...
Vishnu Mohan T. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ156Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mehta learned advocate appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Samata learned advocate for Nanavati Associates appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. Ms. Samata learned advocate for Nanavati Associates for respondent No. 3 has tendered reply affidavit and same is taken on record. Mr. Mankad submitted that if the reply filed by the respondent No. 3 necessitates any response from the petitioner, then the same will be submitted before the Provident Fund Commissioner. He reserves the said right.3. The petitioner, an employee of respondent No. 3 A.C. Nielson O.R.G. Marg Pvt. Ltd., has preferred present petition praying for below mentioned relief:(A) The Hon'ble Court would be pleased to declare that respondent No. 1 and its; officials have miserably failed in discharge of their statutory duties i...
Loknath Bhattacharya, Managing Director, Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3577; (2009)2GLR1290
Anant S. Dave, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Criminal Case No. 217 of 1995 registered with the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Rajpipla, Dist. Bharuch along with the summons issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Rajpipla, with regard to the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners for violation of Section 2(ix)(k) and Rule 32(e) and Sections 7(ii)(v) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively).2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners herein are directors viz. petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director and the petitioner No. 2 is Director of Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., which is a limited Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Offi...
Kalubhai Maganbhai Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2317
A.L. Dave, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order rendered by the City Sessions Court No. 4, in Sessions Case No. 205/1997, on 25.04,2001. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 468/2001 was original accused No. 1, whereas the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 508/2001 was original accused No. 4, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 667/2001 was original accused No. 2 before the trial Court. All the appellants, along with accused Jagdishbhai Kalidas, came to be tried by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 326 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment impugned.2. As per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 8.5.1997 around 9.00 P.M., near the Health Department Quarters of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation situated at Gomtipur, Ahmedabad. As per the prosecution case, all the four accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted Jayantibhai Chhaganbhai, Kamlesh Parshotambhai, Prakash Chimanlal, Ani...
Mohammed Ashif Gulamkadar Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3582; (2009)3GLR2214
J.R. Vora, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) against the judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad City on 21-2-2004 in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2003 whereby the present appellant being the accused of the said Sessions Case came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence established against him under Section 498-A, while he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/-, in default, it was directed that the same shall be recovered in accordance with law. It was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. As per the brief case of the prosecution, in this case the deceased is Femidabanu, wi...
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR120(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Considering the scope of controversy the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondent authority is directed to waive service.2 Petitioner is a public limited company with which, another public limited company named Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. amalgamated with effect from 1-4-2005. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. shall hereinafter be referred to as the assessee. The respondent assessing officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for assessment year 2002-03. It is the said notice which is under challenge in the present petition.3. assessee furnished return of income under Section 139 of the Act on 30-10-2002. The assessment came to be framed on 21-3-2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the impugned notice dated 29-3-2007 has been issued. The reasons recorded for issuing the said notice read as under:Name & address of the assess...
Vaghabhai Talsibhai Koli and 3 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)1GLR774
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The appellants, who were original accused in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1999, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) by Sessions Court, Amreli on 31.8.2001. Each of the appellant-accused was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. No order of separate sentence came to be passed for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the incident occurred on dated 29.7.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. in Village Kariyana, Tal. Babra, Dist. Amreli. At the time and place of the incident, deceased Lakhubhai Harsurbhai along with his son - first informant Maheshbhai Lakhubhai and Chhaganbhai Jivabhai (PW-12) were proceeding in a rickshaw driven by th...
Sendhaji Amraji Thakore Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-iv and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: [2009]315ITR233(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned advocate for the respondent is directed to waive service.2. The petition has been preferred praying for following reliefs:(A) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order at Exhibit-I and Exhibit-L.(B) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction asking the Respondent No. 1 to quash/waive the interest in toto.(C) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction asking the Respondents and his subordinates not to do any further or other thing including the recovery of said interest of Rs. 5,84,348/- in pursuance of the said order at Exhibit-I and Exhibit-L.(D) this Hon...
Cit Vs. N.R. Paper and Board Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: [2009]313ITR359(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred only the following question at the instance of applicant-Revenue, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), though the applicant-revenue had suggested as many as eight questions:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and proper interpretation of provisions of Section 158BB and Part-II, Part-III of the Form No. 28 for Block Assessment, the I.T.A.T. was justified in law in holding that the assessee is eligible to deduction Under Section 80I or 80IA with reference to 'total undisclosed income' of the Block period?2. The controversy relates to block period commencing from Assessment Year 1986-87 and ending on 06.01.1996. The respondent-assessee, a Limited Company, claimed deduction under Sections 80I or 80IA of the Act in relation to the 'total undisclosed income' of the block period. The said claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the matter carried before Tribuna...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »