Gujarat Court July 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.
Ajitsinh R. Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj171; (2009)3GLR1866
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges show-cause notices dated 21-11-2008 and 2-1-2009 issued in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (the Act).2. The petitioner was elected as Councillor of Jetpur-Navagadh Municipality in February, 2003. During the tenure of the said elected body the petitioner held post of President between 12-9-2005 to 4-3-2008. Impugned show-cause notices have been issued on 21-11-2008 and 2-1-2009 and both the notices specifically referred to the alleged defaults during the period of office held in the earlier tenure of the body of which the petitioner was Councillor. It is an accepted position that fresh elections took place in February, 2008 and the petitioner was declared to be elected vide certificate issued by the Election Officer on 19-2-2008.3. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notices are bad in law, being without jurisdiction considering the fa...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Unique Chemicals
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(168)LC182(Gujarat)
K.A. Puj, J.1. At the instance of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Bench-C has referred to the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court.i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in holding that Modvat Credit of duty paid on basic inputs used in the intermediate product (intermediate inputs) cannot be denied by applying Rule 57 C of the C. Ex. Rules, 1944, in respect of removal of inputs from one factory to another under the provisions of Notn. No. 217/86 CE, as amended by Notn. No. 97/89-CE by following Chapter X procedure of the C. Ex. Rules, under which payment of duty on the ultimate final products is ensured.ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 57C has to be strictly construed disregarding the fact that Notn. No. 217/86 is essentially based on Modvat scheme and the amendment carried out by way of Notn. No. 97/89-CE was to facilitate such remov...
Thakorbhai Haribhai Patel Vs. Shree DakshIn Gujaraj Ahir Samaj Seva Sa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj155
ORDERAbhilasha Kumari, J.Mr. Plnakln B. Raval, learned Counsel'waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. J.B. Pardiwala, learned Counsel, waives service on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 and 5.1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17.07.2008, passed by the trial Court in application at Exhibit-293, in Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1997 and Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1998, whereby the said application of the petitioner, for filing a fresh written statement, has been rejected.2. The facts of the present case are some what chequered and are being briefly reproduced hereunder.2.1 The petitioner is the original defendant No. 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1998. Respondent No. 1-Trust is the plaintiff therein. The said Suit has been filed with a prayer for declaration and permanent injunction and for a decree of specific...
Harishbhai Kantilal Shah Vs. Ismalbhai Dadabhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1909
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Mr. Shital R. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, who is the main contesting respondent, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent No. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is being heard and decided today.2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 7-7-2009, passed below application at Exh.19, in Civil Misc.Appeal No. 101 of 2009, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara has set aside the order dated 5-6-2009, rendered by the Trial Court under application Exh.6 in Special Civil Suit No. 326 of 2009, for appointment of a Receiver.3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the material on record, are that the petitioner(original plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No. 326 of 2009, inter alia with a prayer for grant of declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent No. 1 is the ori...
Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager Vs. Ashokbhai Govindbhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1845
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K. N. Shastri for appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh B. Shah for respondent.2. In this appeal, the appellant-Union of India has challenged award passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Case No. O.A. 0100024, dated 31-8-2007. The Railway Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- with 6% running interest from date of petition till realization of awarded compensation.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shastri has raised contention before this Court that claimant has not made out any case of amount under provisions of Railways Act, 1989. He also raised contention before this Court that incident is not covered as an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Learned Advocate Mr. Shastri also submitted it was a negligence on part of claimant and due to that, accident is occurred. For that, railway authority is not responsible at all. He also raised one contention before this Court that in respect to int...
Riza Abdul Razak Zunzunia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4766
ORDERH.N. Devani, J.1. By this application under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the applicant has challenged the order dated 7th October, '2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on the application Exhibit 49 made by the applicant in Criminal Case No. 36128 of 2006, whereby the applicant's application under Section 437(6) of the Code has been rejected,2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that a first information report came to be lodged against the applicant herein before the Salabatpura Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468, 471(a) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be registered vide I C.R. No. 57 of 2006. At the relevant point of time, the applicant was already in police custody in connection with a similar offence registered against him; hence, he was produced before the concerned Court on 28th April, 2006 and wa...
Comm. of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(169)LC71(Gujarat)
K.A. Puj, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai, has referred to the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944:Reference No. 17 of 2000Whether the view of the Tribunal is correct in law that the credit of Modvat provided in Rule 57B in cases where the input is cleared in terms of notification granting partial exemption, based on the value of clearance i.e. notification 175/86 could be taken at a point in time later than credit of duty actually paid is taken?Reference No. 4 of 2001Whether the higher notional credit in terms of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be taken within a reasonable period i.e. six months from the date of receipt of the input and original date of credit taken?Though the questions in both the references are differently worded, the controversy involved therein is same and h...
Commi. of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Shree Pramukh Switchgear
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(170)LC87(Gujarat)
K.A. Puj, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad following question of law has been referred by the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal West Regional Bench at Mumbai under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Whether modvat credit is admissible on the gate passes endorsed after 1.4.94 and whether the notification No. 16/94-CE/NT dtd 30.3.94 would stand extended if the gate passes are issued prior to date specified in the said notification, but endorsed subsequently and whether such gate passes could be recognized as proper duty paying documents?2. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that the respondent in this case was availing of modvat credit under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules. The respondent was found to have taken the modvat credit on the strength of gate passes which were endorsed after 1.4.1994. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad therefore initiated proceedings by issuance of...
Dharmendra Kumar Mohanji Mishra Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1963
M.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner-original accused has preferred this application with the prayers - (A) to quash the proceedings and in particular the charge-sheet which is submitted in the case against the accused on the basis of the order of sanction alleged to have been passed by the Central Government, (B) to set aside the judgment and order dated 14-6-2007 passed by Shri P. B. Desai, learned Special Judge, Court IV for C.B.I. Cases, Ahmedabad, (C) quash the order passed by Shri S. H. Vora, learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court-Vehicle, Ahmedabad dismissing Exh. 4 the application of the accused for discharging him on the ground of want of valid sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Act, and (D) order that pending the admission and/or hearing and disposal of this petition further proceedings in Special Case No. 17 of 2003 (C.B.I. Case) dated 13-2-2009 before the learned Judge hearing the C.B.I. Cases in Ahmedabad are stayed.2. The gist of the facts of the case as emerging fr...
Raja Khima Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1654
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.H. Joshi appearing on behalf of appellant and learned A.G.Ps. Mr. Sharma and Mr. Raval appearing on behalf of respondents-State Authorities in all matters.2. Considering submissions made by all learned Advocates, each First Appeals are admitted.3. Learned A.G.Ps. Mr. Sharma and Mr. Raval waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents-State authorities.4. With consent of all learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, present group of First Appeals is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.5. This group of appeals are filed by appellants claimants by challenging common award passed by 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case Nos. 640 to 685 of 1987 decided on 25th April, 2006. The Reference Court has dismissed each Reference on ground of limitation only.6. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that appellants are original owner of land situated at village Kharavedha in Taluka ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »