Gujarat Court February 2011 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.
Comm. Central Excise and Customs Surat-ii. Vs. Sanju Silk Mills.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Leave to add the substantial questions of law as proposed vide amendment dated 27.10.2010.2. In this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), the appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 1^st June, 2009, made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) proposing the following questions:"(a) Whether the deemed export made by the Notice to other 100% EOUs in the country in terms of para 9.20 of Exim policy 1997-2002 were to be considered for the purpose of para 9.9(a), 9.9(b) and 9.20 of Exim policy 1997-2002 after taking consideration the definition of "Export" as described under Section 2(18) of Customs Act, 1962 as the term "Export" is neither defined in Exim Policy 1997-2002 nor in Central Excise Act, 1944.(b) If the Deemed Export cannot be treated as "Export" in terms of Notification No.2/95 CE dated 04.01.95 then, can M/s.Sanju Silk Mills be permitted to clear goods in DTA against the Deemed E...
Junagadh Power Project Pvt.Ltd-Thro' Company Secretary and Anr. vs. St ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Heard Mr A B Gogia, learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State.2. It is submitted that the dispute in question had arisen out of a contractual relationship and with regard to the alleged non-payment of salary. However, service of the complainant pursuant to the contract was terminated and no amount is outstanding and, therefore, the Bank was instructed not to make payment.3. Besides, the complainant has claimed salary for the notice period which would not fall within the jurisdiction of the court taking up the matters pertaining to Negotiable Instruments Act and remedy lies elsewhere.4. Considering the above, prima facie, it appears that the complainant has taken recourse of the Negotiable Instruments Act for redressal of his grievances if any against his employer. Considering the above,5. RULE returnable on 07th March, 2011. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 6 [C]....
Essar Oil Limited. Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the extract of the speech of the Finance Minister while presenting Budget in the year 1999 (page 113 to the petition) to submit that the intention behind levy of additional duty on imported and domestic High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD) was to garner additional revenue.2. It was submitted that additional duty of customs is sought to be levied in the light of the provisions of section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 which lays down that if the goods are imported into India after exportation therefrom, such goods shall be liable to duty and be subject to all the conditions and restrictions, if any, to which goods of the like kind and value are liable or subject, on the importation thereof. 3. It is submitted that in the present case, additional duty of customs is levied under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999. It is submitted that the Finance Act, 1999 does not contain any ...
Kanaji Karsanji Thakor and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. The petitioners are the original accused. They have challenged an order dated 6.3.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Visnagar.2. Facts of the case are as follows :2.1 Against the petitioners complaint being C.R.No. I-107/2006 was lodged. Sessions Court on 10.11.2008 framed the charges against the petitioners for various offences namely, Sections 147, 148, 307, 326, 337, 504, 451 of the IPC as also Section 429 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Sessions Court however, while framing charge did not include Section 149 of IPC against accused though said provision was included in the charge-sheet. Trial was conducted. Evidence was recorded. Case was kept for oral arguments. At that stage, the impugned order dated 6.3.2010 came to be passed by learned Judge by which he was pleased to order framing of charge under Section 149 of the IPC also. He order recalling of witnesses for recording their further evidence and cross examination. It...
Harkishan R Joshi. Vs. Bhikhabhai Mohanbhai Thummar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Both the petitions arise out of the same factual and legal background, and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Before proceeding to notice the factual and legal controversy, as emerging from Special Criminal Application No.2271 of 2007, it would be appropriate to notice that respondent No.1, in respective petitions, is the owner of the factory, against whom, because of water pollution, proceedings were initiated. The owners have been duly served, but, have not been represented by any advocate. Respondent No.2-Company, in each petition, is not served. However, under challenge in these petitions are the orders passed by the learned Magistrate in discharge applications, filed by the owners, wherein the said Companies were not joined as the petitioners. In above view of the matter, I have proceeded to hear the learned Advocates for the petitioner, GPCB, in both the matters.3. In Special Criminal Application No.2271 of 2007, the petitioner Board has...
Khodabhai Raijibhai RathodiyA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence of murder of his wife, Sumiben Khodabhai on 24.1.2005 at about 10.00 p.m.in their own house, preceded by an altercation and a quarrel, by causing injury on the head of the deceased with the help of a wooden log. The judgment was rendered by the Sessions Court, Vadodara on 12.8.2005 in Sessions Case No.95 of 2005.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:2.1 The appellant and his wife Sumiben were staying at their house located at Juna Bazar area of village Karjan. They had led a married life of about 10 years. On 24.1.2005, there was an altercation/quarrel between them in which the appellant inflicted multiple blows with a wooden log on his wife Sumiben, to which she succumbed. An FIR was lodged with Dabhoi Police Station. The case was investigated and charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Dabhoi. Learned JMFC, Dabhoi, in turn, committed the case to a Court of Sessions, as the case was tradable exclusively by the Court of S...
Mohammad Altaf Abdul Kadir BagwalA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1.0 Since, charge-sheet is, yet, to be filed, learned Counsel for the petitioner DOES NOT press this petition qua petitioner No.1. Rule is DISCHARGED qua PETITIONER NO.1.1.1 Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused has been released on anticipatory bail. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. No articles, such as money or fake gold biscuits, were found from him.2.0 Considering the above, prima facie, aspects of the matter and considering that the trial is unlikely to complete shortly and also looking to the role attributed to the petitioner in the complaint, I find this is a fit case for granting bail. Under the circumstances, PETITIONER NO.2 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-155/2010, registered with CHIKHLI POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-419, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand), with one surety of the...
Ayubkhan Hasamkhan Pathan. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 2.1.09 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara below application of the petitioner dated 24.11.08 seeking release of muddamal articles namely, Rs.3,65,250/- by way of interim custody out of Rs.5,30,250/- seized by the Investigating Agency.2. Since the learned Magistrate rejected the said application, the petitioner also preferred Revision Application, which also came to be dismissed by the order dated 9^th October 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara.3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the work of labour contract. He had withdrawn the said amount of Rs.3,65,250/- from the Bank before the raid under the Bombay Gambling Act. No useful purpose will be served in keeping such muddamal articles in custody. The trial may take long time to conclude. He further submitted that the petitioner would abide by any just conditions that may be imposed. Reliance was placed on a ...
M/S Kesar Laminates Through Sunilkumar J Patel. Vs. Gujarat Energy Tra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. The petitioner seeks appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the respondents. This prayer is made in the following factual background.1.1 The petitioner is a proprietary concern involved in the work of rust preventive anti-corrosive treatment. It also claims to have the knowhow in other works such as stub strengthening and stub preparing work, stub repairing and reconditioning work, 11 KV bus-bar insulation, IR Value improvement and reconditioning, etc. With such expertise, the petitioner has been performing different work contracts for and on behalf of respondent No.1 Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO for short), which is the State owned Company involved in the activity of energy transmission. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the officers of respondent No.1 GETCO.1.2 It is the case of the petitioner that GETCO granted a work order to the petitioner which involved execution of various works such as rust preventive coating, IR Value improvement work etc. S...
State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Salot Maksud Aamadbhai.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Heard learned AGP Ms.Sachi Mathur for petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Sunil L. Mehta for respondent.2. In this matter, the petitioners have challenged judgment and order passed by Addl. District Judge and Presiding Officer, 2^nd Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Civil Misc. Appeal No.83 of 2010, decided on 20.10.2010.3. Initially, the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2010 was filed by plaintiff present respondent, challenging termination order passed by petitioners. During pendency of aforesaid civil suit, one application was made at Exh.5 with a prayer to grant interim relief against termination order. That Exh.5 application has been dismissed on 14.7.2010 by Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot. Against which, appeal came to be preferred by plaintiff which has been allowed in favour of plaintiff by order dated 20.10.2010 and order passed by 13^th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2010 below Exh.5 dated 14.7.2010 has been set aside and ad-interim injun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »