Gujarat Court March 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.
Ghanshyam Jashwantlal Raval Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1743
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31st August, 2008 passed by the Mamlatdar on or after 30th September, 2008. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Mamlatdar to certify the Entry No. 21389 registered in the revenue record. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner with ten other persons filed a Civil Suit No. 3 of 2008 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Sanand for declaration and injunction against one Arvindbhai Harilal Raval and five other persons. In the said suit the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of Jivanbhai Lallubhai Raval. Since, there was some family dispute regarding the land of Khata Nos. 731, 1439 and 1440 situated in the sim of Sanand village, Taluka, Sanand, the above suit was filed.2. The complete details of the dispute between the parties in the Civil Suit are given in the 'lis pende...
Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia and ors. Vs. Competent Authority Appointed ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2137
ORDER2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 9-2-2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Petition No. 14 of 2007 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, suffering from the vices of mala fides, contrary to the provisions of the Defection Act as well as Rules framed thereunder and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also prayed for the stay against the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 9-2-2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Petition No. 14 of 2007 and further stay against the proceedings of Petition No. 14 of 2007.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are elected members of Morbi Nagar Palika in the general election held in the year 2005. The Morbi Nagar Palika has 42 elected members. In the meeting held on 21-12-2005, Shri Pradipbhai H. Vala, came to be elected as the Presid...
Dipakbhai Mohanbhai Patel Vs. A.S. Patel or His Successor in the Offic ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2167
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This group of 13 appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the common judgment dated 25-8-2008 of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 30705 of 2007 and connected petitions challenging removal of the appellants from the office of members of Bopal Gram Panchayat under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Elections to Bopal Gram Panchayat were held on 25-12-2006. One Shantaben Bachubhai Patel was elected as Sarpanch. The present appellants, 13 in number, along with 13 other persons were elected as members of Bopal Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat'). The first meeting of the Panchayat was held on 17-1-2007. By a show-cause notice dated 7-8-2007, the Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat including the present appellants, were called upon to show cause why they should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch and members of the G...
Hansaben W/O. Bhagwanbhai Ratnabhai and Legal Guardian of Minor Sanjay ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1255
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since, all these matters are inter-connected with each other and they are heard together, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Special Civil Application No. 14179 of 2007 is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 28-5-2007 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in stay application preferred by the private respondents in Revision Application No. 19 of 2006.3. This Court has issued rule on 15-6-2007 and ad interim relief was granted in terms of Para 27(B) of the petition whereby the impugned order dated 28-5-2007 was stayed by this Court.4. During the pendency of this petition, respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.6 have filed Civil Application No. 13999 of 2008 for vacation of the interim relief granted by this Court on 15-6-2007 and continued thereafter till this date.5. Similarly, Special Civil Application No. 14181 of 2007 is filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department ...
Lalitaben Hariprasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Guj)306; [2010]320ITR698(Guj); [2009]180TAXMAN213(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Both the reference and tax appeal are taken-up for hearing together as the issue involved is identical.2. In Income-tax Reference No. 19 of 1998 following question of law arises at the instance of the assessee, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' having made a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'):Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim Rs. 14,33,000 as additional cost of acquisition of the interest in property for purposes of computation of capital gains3. In Tax Appeal No. 158 of 1999 following two substantial questions of law have been formulated by the High Court while admitting the appeal vide order dated 27-1-2000:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim Rs. 14,33,000 as additional cost of acquisition of the interest in property for purposes of computation of capital gains?2. Whether on the facts and in the ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: [2009]315ITR188(Guj); [2009]184TAXMAN463(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. On March 23, 2000, at the time of admission, the following question of law was formulated by this Court:(B) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case based on reappraisal of evidence, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that an amount of Rs. 2,36,85,075 allowed as deduction under Section 43B to the amalgamating sister concern would not be liable to be included in the hands of the successor amalgamating company with reference to the provisions of Section 43B?2. The assessment year in question is 1989-90. The assessee, a limited company took over the assets and liabilities of another company being Vareli Textile Industries Ltd. In relation to the customs duty paid by Vareli Textile Industries Ltd., the said company had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,36,85,075. Vareli Textile Industries Ltd. amalgamated with the asses-see-company with effect from April 1, 1988. The Assessing Officer made addition protectively in the hands of the assessee compa...
Shamjibhai Ranchhodbhai Dabhi Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1757
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the direction to the respondent No. 1 to accept and decide the application dated 5-1-2007 at Annexure 'K' of the petition under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration that the letter dated 31-5-2007 by the respondent No. 1 issued to the petitioner is illegal, void and inoperative, and hence, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the same and also the direction to grant refund of the excess amount of stamp duty paid by the petitioner.2. This Court has issued Rule on 21-4-2008. Pursuant to the service of rule, an affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 on 29-12-2008.3. Heard Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Trusha K. Pat...
Pannaben Niranjan M. Mehta Died Through Heirs Vs. Competent Authority ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2270
H.N. Devani, J.1. Admit. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri waives service of notice of admission of the appeal on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the facts of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition has been dismissed and the order dated 14-11-1984 passed by the Competent Authority and Additional Collector, respondent No. 1-herein as well as the order dated 6-10-1987 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal respondent No. 2 herein which were subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition have been affirmed.3. The appellants herein are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Pannaben Niranjan M. Mehta, who was the original-petitioner in the writ petition. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Shri Niranjan Mehta, husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to ...
Alidhara Texpro Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)481
D.A. Mehta, J.1. All the four petitions have been taken up together as the basic facts are common. Considering the scope of controversies between the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondent in all the four matters is directed to waive service.2. Though, all the four petitions are taken up for hearing together, it is necessary to indicate at the outset that there are two classes; one relating to petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7240 of 2008 and 7551 of 2008; whereas the other class relates to petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7252 of 2008 and 7253 of 2008. Admittedly all the four petitioner companies belong to one group.3. For Assessment Year 2005-2006 during course of assessment proceedings, respondent authority was of the opinion that powers available under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the 'Act') are required to be exercised, and accounts of all the four assessees are req...
inducto Ispat Alloys Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR458(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned Counsel for respondent authority is directed to waive service.2. The assessment year in question is 2002-03. On 31-10-2002, the petitioner filed return of income showing total income at Rs. Nil. After scrutiny, assessment came to be framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) determining the total income at Rs. 2,80,96,870 on 31-3-2005.3. Vide notice dated 27-3-2008 issued under Section 148 of the Act, the respondent authority has initiated reassessment proceedings. The reasons recorded as supplied by the respondent authority vide communication dated 5-5-2008 read as under:The reasons for reopening of assessment is as hereunder:Perusal of assessment records revealed that assessee had paid lease rent of Rs. 11,68,740 on gas cylinders in the relevant year. Whereas at the same time assessee had also sold its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »