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.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and 2 ors. Vs. Shankarbhai Gordhanbha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1263
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned AGP Mrs. v. Pathak for appellant Special Land Acquisition Officer and Mr. BS Patel, learned Advocate for respondents original claimants.2. By filing this group of appeals, appellant has challenged judgment and award made by Reference Court - namely 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vadodara in Land Reference Case No. 961 to 966 of 1990, 970, 972, 977 to 978 of 1990 (Main Case No. 963/90) wherein Reference Court has awarded Rs. 4,00,000.00 lacs per Hactor with other consequential benefits.3. Considering submissions made by both learned advocates in this group of appeals, appeals are admitted. Learned Advocate Mr. BS Patel waives notice of admission on behalf of respondents and requests this Court to decide the matters finally today itself. Therefore, with consent of both learned Advocates, matters are taken up for final hearing today itself.4. Aforesaid reference cases were arising before the reference court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act...
Purviben W/O Chetankumar Vishnubhai Patel Vs. Chetankumar Vishnubhai P ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1298
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant - Original Defendant - wife ('Appellant wife'), challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court in Family Suit No. 329 of 2000 dated 18th March 2002, allowing the petition for divorce filed by the Respondent 'Original Petitioner - husband ('Respondent husband'), for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act').2. The facts of the case briefly stated are:2.1 The marriage between the Respondent husband and the Appellant - wife was solemnized on 21.5.1995 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage, they started living together as husband and wife, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. Thereafter, the quarrel started, and the wife left the matrimonial house. Some efforts were made thereafter for reconciliation, but resulted in failure. Therefore, the Respondent - husband filed Family Suit No. 329 of 2000 seeki...
NitIn Alias Nitu Ramprasad Bachicha (Dhobi) Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2330; (2009)2GLR1223
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Vadodara on 29.10.2004 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2004. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2258 of 2004, Criminal Appeal No. 2275 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2005 were original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 1, respectively. Criminal Appeal No. 955 of 2005 came to be filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for enhancement of sentence.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2004, convicted all the above referred three appellants being original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with original accused Nos. 4 and 5, who are respondents No. 4 and 5 in State appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 955 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 354, 342, 363, 366, 376(2)(g) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC. for short), and eac...
Babubhai Bababhai Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2127
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 40 of 2001, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and also for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the sentence has been imposed upon the accused for life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 1,000/-, for the imprisonment for 5 years with the fine of Rs. 500/- and for one year imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 200/- respectively for the concerned offences.2. As per the prosecution case, on 5-1-2000, when there was Navratri Festival, the complainant had gone to the temple of Bhavani Mata for offering naivedya and at that time, they had also gone for observing garba with his uncle's son Kamleshbhai at Khodiyar temple. There was lot of rush and...
Navjivan Roller Flour and Pulse Mills Limited Vs. the Deputy Cit (Asst ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Guj)55; [2009]315ITR190(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. On 06.09.2000 the Appeal came to be admitted by formulating the following substantial question of law:Whether the liability of Rs. 7,14,824/- arising under the arbitration award against the appellant declared in the assessment year 1988-89 and not accrued in that year only because the award was challenged in appeal by the assessee and therefore was not allowable in the assessment year 1988-89?2. The Assessment Year in question is 1988-89, the relevant accounting period being year ended on 30.09.1987. Originally assessment was framed vide order dated 01.10.1990 made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently by an order made under Section 263 of the Act, Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda, set aside the assessment order holding that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer had wrongly allowed deduction of Rs. 7,14,824/- on account of damages on the basis of arbitration aw...
Gopibai Wd/O Sunderdas Vs. State of Gujarat and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj91; (2009)2GLR1219
C.K. Buch, J.1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed in Court Fee Reference No. 1 of 2004, whereby, the learned Presiding Judge dismissed the application exh.14 and imposing cost of Rs. 3,000/- on the applicant. Say of the petitioner before the lower Court was that Court Fee Reference requires to be heard and decided by the Presiding Judge before whom the suit is pending and therefore, the Reference requires to be transferred to the Court where the suit is pending and at the time of deciding other issues.2. It is submitted by Mr. Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that initially, Court Fee Reference was pending before the learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], but vide office order No. 4839 of 2004, dated 17th December, 2004 issued by the District Judge, the same was transferred to the court of Civil Judge [Senior Division] Gandhidham-Kachchh for disposal in accordance with law...
Coronation Flour Mills Vs. Asstt. C.i.T.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]314ITR1(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. On 18.10.2000, while admitting the appeal, following two questions have been formulated by this Court:2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 25,880 paid to M/s.Corona Machine Works could be disallowed under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act without giving a finding on the market value of the services received by the assessee?3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 67,500/- paid to M/s.P.K. Gujarati & Co., Chartered Accountant could be covered under Section 40A(12) of the Act?4. The Assessment Year in question is 1988-89. The appellant-assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in manufacturing of Maida, Suji, Bran, etc. and in the course of its business activities it incurred certain expenses. One of the said expenses was towards payment of Rs. 54,000/- to M/s. Corona Machine Works on account ...
The Income Tax Officer Vs. Sachinam Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)152; [2010]320ITR445(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. On 31.07.2000, when the appeal was admitted, following substantial question of law was formulated:Is the Appellate Tribunal right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271B amounting to Rs. 72,451/- on the ground that it is not the gross amount of advances made during the year which constituted turnover but the gross interest received which constitute the basis for liability under Section 44AB. 2. The Assessment Year in question is 1992-93. The Assessee, an association of persons, is carrying on business of financing. The Gross Interest Receipts for the year under consideration were Rs. 1,85,510/- on the total amount of advances which were to the tune of Rs. 1,44,90,381/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that in terms of provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the Assessee was under an obligation to get its accounts audited because the total amount of advances during the year under consideration constitute th...
P. Chandrasekharan Vs. O.L. of Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas829(Guj); [2010]98SCL188(Guj)
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Admit. The learned advocates waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents.2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated August 8, 2008, rendered by the learned company judge in Company Application No. 538 of 2007 in Civil Application No. 5 of 2004 in Company Application No. 183 of 2000.3. The grievance of the appellant is that though other similarly situated workers of the company-in-liquidation have been paid their salaries, the appellant has not been paid his salary for the very same period and has only received a sum of Rs. 50,000 which has been disbursed subsequent to the order of winding up qua the other workers.4. The appellant resides at Chennai. He has been appearing as party-in-person on each date. Therefore, by order dated October 10, 2008, this Court dispensed with the presence of the appellant by observing that if it is found necessary, notice shall be issued to him.5. The brief facts, as culled out from the...
Lmp Precision Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)301; [2009]183TAXMAN12(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following three questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the assessee:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, was justified in law?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming levy of penalty on the appellant in spite of the finding given by the AO in the assessment proceedings that nothing specific was found by the AO and whether the said finding can be regarded as casual remarks made by the AO ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was liable to levy of penalty on the disclosed income is borne out of record and contrary to evidence?2. The assessment years in question are 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The respective acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »