Gujarat Court December 2015 Judgments
Dipakbhai Prahaladbhai Patel Vs. Tribhovandas Gangaram Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-2015
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioners. 2. Notice returnable on 8th January, 2016. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel has contended that by virtue of provisions of section 97(1)(B), the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is hopelessly time barred. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 17/12/2015 in L.P.A. No. 1459 of 2015 to contend that since 2006, nobody has raised any objection regarding the membership of the petitioners and has urged that the adinterim relief, as prayed for, in para 6(B) may be granted. 4. Having heard Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and having perused the accompaniment of the petition, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the interest of the petitioners so far as their rights to exercise their franchise in the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Natwarlal Pitambardar Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2015
Oral Order [1] Notice be issued to opponents, making it returnable on 08th January, 2016. Mr.Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice on behalf of opponents Nos.1 to 3. Direct Service for opponent No.4 is permitted. [2] The petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No.19715 of 2015 for writ or prohibition or writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent-State Authorities from nominating any Director/appointing any Director in the Board of Directors of Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter refereed to as "the bank" for short). In the said petition, an interim relief is prayed to restrained the State Authorities from nominating any Director/appointing any Director in the Board of Directors and also to restrain such nominee from casting his vote at the election of the office bearers of the bank. [3] The present Civil Application is preferred for following reliefs: "13(A) Pending hearing and final dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Chetankumar Pravinchandra Sadhu Vs. State Of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral Order: 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-184 of 2015 registered with Bhavnagar 'A' Division Police Station, District-Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Thu Dec 24 00:16:17 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/23842/2015 ORDER applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investi...
Tag this Judgment!Munneshbhai Indrajitlal Choksi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral Order: Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. J.K.Shah, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 58594/14, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, arising from C.R No. I-151 of 2014 registered with the Umra Police Station, Surat, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II, read with Section 114 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:- 2. The applicant before me is a structural Engineer who had designed the building, which is said to have collapsed. A building in the name of "Kanaiya Palace", situated at Ghoddod Road, Surat was constructed in the year 1998, to be precise, the construction had commenced in the year 1994 and the same was completed in the y...
Tag this Judgment!Range Forest Officer Vs. Vitthalbhai Bhaubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
Oral Judgment: Jayant Patel, A.C.J. 1. Admit. Ms.Megha Jani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman by caveat waives notice of admission. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the appeal is finally heard. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10736/09, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and further directed for reinstatement of the respondent workman original petitioner with continuity in service and backwages to the fullest extent. 4. We have heard Mr.Devnani, learned AGP for the appellant and Ms.Jani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman. 5. It is an undisputed position that initially, on 01.04.1990, the respondent workman was terminated from service and he had raised the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act (herei...
Tag this Judgment!Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Settlement Commissi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Petition is filed by the Income Tax Department challenging two separate orders passed by the Settlement Commission dated 28.01.2015 and 23.03.2015. The respondent-assessee, having applied for settlement of the income for the Assessment Year 2013-14, the Settlement Commission passed its first order dated 28.01.2015 under Section 245D(1) of the Act and allowed the application to proceed further with. 1.1 The Settlement Commission thereafter passed another order dated 23.03.2015 under Section 245D(2C) of the Act and allowed the said application to proceed further from that stage. These orders the Income Tax Department has challenged on various grounds. 2. The case of the Department is that both the orders of the Settlement Commission suffer from material irregularities. Application for settlement was irregular and that therefore, ought not to have been proceeded further beyond the stage of Section 245D(1) of the Act. In any case, assessee had not made true disclosure o...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Mall (Association of Person) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax,Vals ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.10.2014 as at Annexure-A to the petition passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on application dated 19.02.2014 filed by the petitioners. 2. Brief facts are as under: Petitioner No.1 is an association of persons ("AOP" for short). Petitioners No.2 to 9 are members of such association. The association owns a Mall and is engaged in managing the Mall. Being an association of persons, according to the petitioners, the income generated from such activity would be proportionately divided among its members in their individual capacity. Petitioner No.1 applied for grant of PAN Card on 19.01.2015. Unfortunately, though on the request for issuance of PAN in the name of AOP the Department erroneously issued PAN in favour of partnership firm, the petitioner did not take any steps to get the PAN corrected for a long time. Under a belief that AOP is not required to file returns, for several years the petitioner did not file income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Pri. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 Vs. Applitech Solution Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.04.2014 raising following question for our consideration: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in directing the Assessing Officer to charge interest u/s 234B of the Act after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal till the date of order of original assessment?" 2. As can be seen from the question, the issue pertains to the date upto which, interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be admitted. As is well known, Section 234B pertains to interest for default in payment of advance tax. Sub-section (1) need to be noted, relevant portion of which reads as under: '234B. Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under Section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such asse...
Tag this Judgment!PR. Commissioner of Income-tax-3 Vs. Rajabhai Lumbhabhai Hadiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. This tax appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.04.2015 raising the following question, for our consideration: "(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cased and in law, the ITAT was right in ignoring the fact that as per provisions of section 50-C (2)(b) of the Act, the matter should not have been referred by CIT(A) for valuation as the assessee had already challenged the Juntry Value assessable by the Stamp Valuation authority, before the Nayab Collector and in that case, further reference to valuation is prohibited as per the Act and value determined by Nayab Collector has to be adopted as full value of consideration ?" 2. The issue pertains to valuation of immovable property sold by the assessee during the previous year, relevant assessment year 2007-2008, for sale consideration of Rs. 47 lakhs. Sub-Registrar of Stamp Duty, however, valued the asset in question at Rs. 3.4 crore (rounded off). Assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Taurus Shipping Services
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Revenue has filed these appeals raising identical question for our consideration which reads as under: "Whether the impugned order is perverse in law and on facts in wrongly interpreting the voyage of the vessel between two ports in India, as 'international voyage' and permitting the Assessee to avail the benefit of Article 8 of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that: The respondent-assessee is a company and had acted as an agent of three vessels which had transported goods from Kandla Port to Visag. The freight beneficiary was one M/s. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Limited, who claimed benefit of DTAA between India and Singapore. The vessels had undertaken such freight transportation during the journey from Singapore elude to Dubai. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that such transportation between Kandla to Visag cannot be considered as international traffic as defined in DTAA and between India and Singapore. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›