Gujarat Court December 2014 Judgments
United Bunkering and Trading (Asia) Pte Limited Vs. MV Crystal Gold
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-2014
Oral Order: 1. Learned advocate Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing on behalf of the learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the plaintiff at 11.00 a.m. has shown urgency in the matter and requested that the present Admirality Suit be permitted to be circulated today itself. Accordingly, the matter is notified on the board and is taken up for consideration. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth with learned advocate Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the plaintiff. 3. Learned advocate has pointed out the averments made in paragraph No. 10 of the plaint, wherein it is stated as under: "The Plaintiff has learnt that Defendant Vessel is presently at Kandla under arrest order of his Hon'ble court and might sail away upon lifting of the said arrest order since the repairs of the Defendant vessel are over. Thus the Defendant vessel may leave the territorial waters any time and hence, urgent and immediate ex-parte orders are required from this Hon'ble Court for the arrest of the Defendant Vessel before t...
Tag this Judgment!United Bunkering and Trading (Asia) Pte Limited Vs. MV Crystal Gold
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-2014
Oral Order: 1. Learned advocate Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing on behalf of the learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the plaintiff at 11.00 a.m. has shown urgency in the matter and requested that the present Admirality Suit be permitted to be circulated today itself. Accordingly, the matter is notified on the board and is taken up for consideration. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth with learned advocate Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the plaintiff. 3. Learned advocate has pointed out the averments made in paragraph No. 10 of the plaint, wherein it is stated as under: "The Plaintiff has learnt that Defendant Vessel is presently at Kandla under arrest order of his Hon'ble court and might sail away upon lifting of the said arrest order since the repairs of the Defendant vessel are over. Thus the Defendant vessel may leave the territorial waters any time and hence, urgent and immediate ex-parte orders are required from this Hon'ble Court for the arrest of the Defendant Vessel before t...
Tag this Judgment!Pramodkumar Anand Mishra Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original accused has prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) This Honourable Court maybe pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction and be further pleased to exercise the inherent powers to quash and set aside the First Information Report being CR I No.31/2013 registered with Jahangirpura Police Station on 5/10/2013 for the alleged offences under sections 376(2) (K) (F), 377, 354, 357, 342, 346, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506(2), 120(B) read with sec.212 of the Indian Penal Code at Annexure-A as well as the charge-sheet as also the application for addition of sec. 212 of the Indian Penal Code dated 11/10/2013 at annexure-C to the petition; (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings vis--vis the present petitioner in connection with the FIR at Annexure-A, the charge-sheet at Annexure-G as also...
Tag this Judgment!Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report registered at the Umra Police Station, Surat, vide C.R.No.I-20 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief may be summarized as under : The applicant no.1 Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and others viz., Harivadan Shantilal, Laljibhai Arjanbhai, Shardaben Laljibhai, Haresh Laljibhai, Jayantibhai Ranchhodbhai and Chhaganbhai Shantilal executed an agreement for Sale/Contract dated 7th July 2003 in favour of Ravjibhai Premjibhai, Veljibhai Mohanbhai, Nanubhai Premjibhai and Devrajbhai Mohanbhai for the land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 9 paiki (new Revenue Survey No.6, T.P. Scheme No.1 (Vesu), F.P. No.17, admeasuring 7268 sq.mtrs. and 6562 sq.mtrs.) against t...
Tag this Judgment!Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report registered at the Umra Police Station, Surat, vide C.R.No.I-20 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief may be summarized as under : The applicant no.1 Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and others viz., Harivadan Shantilal, Laljibhai Arjanbhai, Shardaben Laljibhai, Haresh Laljibhai, Jayantibhai Ranchhodbhai and Chhaganbhai Shantilal executed an agreement for Sale/Contract dated 7th July 2003 in favour of Ravjibhai Premjibhai, Veljibhai Mohanbhai, Nanubhai Premjibhai and Devrajbhai Mohanbhai for the land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 9 paiki (new Revenue Survey No.6, T.P. Scheme No.1 (Vesu), F.P. No.17, admeasuring 7268 sq.mtrs. and 6562 sq.mtrs.) against t...
Tag this Judgment!Pramodkumar Anand Mishra Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original accused has prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) This Honourable Court maybe pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction and be further pleased to exercise the inherent powers to quash and set aside the First Information Report being CR I No.31/2013 registered with Jahangirpura Police Station on 5/10/2013 for the alleged offences under sections 376(2) (K) (F), 377, 354, 357, 342, 346, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506(2), 120(B) read with sec.212 of the Indian Penal Code at Annexure-A as well as the charge-sheet as also the application for addition of sec. 212 of the Indian Penal Code dated 11/10/2013 at annexure-C to the petition; (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings vis--vis the present petitioner in connection with the FIR at Annexure-A, the charge-sheet at Annexure-G as also...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Joint Venture of MCL and MMCL (AOP)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2014
KS Jhaveri, J. 1. Both these appeals arise from the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, therefore, they are being head and decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant-revenue has challenged the common order dated 24.03.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal") in ITA Nos. 1641 and 1642/Ahd/2001, whereby the appeals preferred by the assessees were allowed by the Tribunal. 3. The facts as well as the question of law of both these appeals are similar, therefore, we discuss the facts of Tax Appeal No.832 of 2007 for our convenience. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee had filed its return for the Assessment Year 1996-97 on 30.10.1996, declared total income of Rs.20,35,000/-. Thereafter, the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer, after scrutiny, passed order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and the amount of registrati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant-Revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the learned ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench 'D' ('the Tribunal' for short), Dated : 24.05.2006, rendered in ITA No.745/Ahd/2001 for the A.Y. 1991-92, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-respondent, herein, filed its return of income along with computation of income, audit report etc. for the year under consideration on 30.12.1991, declaring its total income at 'Nil'. The case of the assessee came to be processed and it was issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). At the end of the assessment proceedings, the concerned AO made certain additions/disallowances to the income of the assessee. Hence, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the Revenue approached t...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Narmada Vally Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-assessee has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short "the Tribunal"] in ITA No. 1130/Ahd/1998, whereby the appeal preferred by the revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes. 2. The facts of this case are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 31.12.1993 for the Assessment Year 1993-94, declared total loss of Rs.5,09,96,806/-. The return was processed and thereafter the Assessing Officer passed order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal for statistical purposes. 2.1 Being Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal vide impugned order partly allowed the said appeal for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Bharat V. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the revenue/assessee have preferred the present Tax Appeals assailing the following ordersTax Appeal No.At the Instance ofDate of Tribunal's orderITA No.Assessment Year14 of 2004Revenue27.06.20032241/Ahd/20021998-9906 of 2004Assessee27.06.20032241/Ahd/20021998-991295 of 2010Revenue18.01.20101645/Ahd/20062002-031.1 These appeals were admitted by this Court for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2004 "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in treating the sum of Rs. 6,80,40,724/- being the amount received on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) as capital gain as against treated as perquisite under Sec.17(2)(iii) of the I.T. Act or under Sec. 28(iv) of the Act purportedly on the ground that the employer - employee relationsh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »