Gujarat Court February 2015 Judgments
Pravinsingh Bhurabha Chauhan Vs. State Of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Cav Judgment 1. The present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs. "(A) To direct the respondent no.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes including "MOR DHUVA" not allotted to the respondent no.2 company, in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages, Ta:Mundra, Kutch and to reverse all its actions in the region that are undertaken before any permission/authentication is granted by any of the respondent authorities; (B) To direct the respondent authorities of the State Government as well as the Central Government to file a status report with respect to the sand dunes on the sea shore in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages Ta:Mundra, Kutch with photographic evidence before this Hon'ble Court; (C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present application, to direct the respondent no.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes including "MOR DHUVA" not allotted to the respondent no.2 comp...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinsingh Bhurabha Chauhan Vs. State Of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Cav Judgment 1. The present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs. "(A) To direct the respondent no.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes including "MOR DHUVA" not allotted to the respondent no.2 company, in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages, Ta:Mundra, Kutch and to reverse all its actions in the region that are undertaken before any permission/authentication is granted by any of the respondent authorities; (B) To direct the respondent authorities of the State Government as well as the Central Government to file a status report with respect to the sand dunes on the sea shore in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages Ta:Mundra, Kutch with photographic evidence before this Hon'ble Court; (C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present application, to direct the respondent no.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes including "MOR DHUVA" not allotted to the respondent no.2 comp...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Jain Sumit Rajeshbhai and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Common Oral Judgment: K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The issue involved in these appeals are similar, therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The present appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants-original respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and orders dated 31.01.2014 and 20.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in different writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the said petitions. 3. The facts of these appeals are identical, therefore, we discuss only the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.1046 of 2014 for our convenience. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant No.2-Commissioner of Technical Education, issued an advertisement on his Website for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, on contractual basis, for a fixed period of eleven months or till regularly sele...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak Vs. State (Central) (SIC) State of Gujarat and A ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
1. Since the issue involved in all the above captioned four applications is the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.430 of 2007 is treated as the lead matter. 3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the complaint registered as Criminal Case No.3112 of 2014 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6 of the offence under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1970). 4. The complaint was filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer under the Act, 1970. 5. It is the case of the complainant that the accused i.e. M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization was awarded a contract work of housekeeping at the SAC Bopal Campus, Jodhpur Tekra, Ah...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay S. Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The facts of the case appears to be that on 25.1.2015, a company in the name and style of Hirak Biotech Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") was incorporated. Initially, there were three Directors. Thereafter, the Directors were added. The petitioner also remained as Director of the company for some time. On 11.10.2013, a show cause notice was issued under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the outstanding tax dues of the company should not be recovered from the petitioner in capacity as the Director of the company. The petitioner submitted reply on 17.10.2013 and as per the petitioner, another show cause notice was issued dated 4.9.2014 calling upon the petitioner to pay the dues, failing which, coercive steps were to be taken. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and as per the petitioner, when the present proceeding was going on before the offi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas D. Vachhani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. As in all the appeals, common questions are to be considered, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. The questions formulated at the time of admission of the appeals, read as under: "(1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the additions under Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the appellant - HUF on substantive basis? (2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming erroneous estimate of agricultural income made by the respondent and further confirming the quantum of agricultural income based on inaccurate method of calculating the same?" 3. Before we address ourself on the questions, we may briefly state the facts as under:- 4. The common facts are that the search operations were conducted by the Income Tax authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 26.09.1996 at the residential as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›