Court : Gujarat
1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioners, two brothers, have prayed for issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the impugned warrant of authorization dated February 16, 2011 issued by the respondent No.1 under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to handover the custody of the seized silver articles to the petitioners. 2. The case made out by the writ-petitioners in the writ-application may be summed up thus:-1. The petitioners are residents of village Hupari, Taluka Hathagande, Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra State and are assessed to Income Tax by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Kchalkaranji, Dist. Kolhapur, in the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioners reside in a joint-family with their parents and are silver artisans and manufacturing silver articles and doing business separately. They are assessed to Income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. By way of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ- petitioner has prayed for declaration that the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are ultravires the Constitution of India and has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated January 30, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Act. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarised as under : “2.1 The petitioner No.1 is a private limited company and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are its Directors. The petitioners availed of loan facility from respondent No.2-Bank and as they failed to repay the loan amount, they were declared as defaulters. As the petitioners defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the Bank decided to proceed against them under the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Makhija, Member: 1. The appellant Shri Giriraj Proteins are original complainant and the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd., are the original opponent and they are referred to as such in their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience. 2. The short facts of the case are that the complainant was running a flour mill in Shriram Builders Compound at Chakalia Road in village Dahod. District Dahod. It was using plastic and gunny bags for packing its product. All the packed and ready material was kept in storage place in the premises of the complainant. The complainant had insured the machinery, goods, stocks, packing material, etc., and the said policy was issued by the opponent company for insuring the risk of Rs. 62 lacs. On 6.5.2003 in the mid-night fire had taken place at the insured premises. The complainant informed the opponent Insurance Company, completed all formalities and submitted the insurance claim. Surveyor was appointed by the opponent who assessed the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Appellant original-petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.12295 of 2009 challenging order dated 18.9.09 passed by respondent No.1 herein, Commission of Inquiry presided by Hon'ble Mr Justice G.T.Nanavati ('Commission' for short). The petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 27.11.09. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, directed against the said judgment dated 27.11.09. During the pendency of the proceedings, certain further developments took place which have also been brought on record through Civil Application No.12673 of 2010 which application for amendment was allowed by order dated 23.11.2010. Consequential pleadings and prayers have also been added. 2. On 27.2.2002, an incident of setting fire of Sabarmati Express Train near Godhra Railway Station took place resulting into unfortunate death of 58 persons. This unfortunate incident resulted into spread of communal violence in various parts of the State of Gujarat a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for issue of appropriate writ, order and direction and thereby to quash and set aside the fixed-pay-condition imposed in the policy framed by the Finance Department by Resolutions KhRCh/2002/57/Z.1 dated February 16, 2006 and April 29, 2010 and to direct the respondent to pay minimum of the pay-scale available in the cadre of the employees who are appointed on regular permanent posts with deemed date effect in the interest of justice; or in the alternative, to direct the respondent to pay minimum wage to the fixed pay employees with corresponding effect of 6th Pay Commission with deemed date effect, i.e. January, 2006 with interest at 12%, in the interest of justice. The writ-petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the State Government dated February 24, 2011 and to direct the State Government to pay minimum wag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr.P.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1, Mr. Rakesh Gupta, learned advocate for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.3 to 5 and Ms.Archana C.Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.6 State of Gujarat. Though respondent No.2 – Competent Authority, who is the author of the impugned communication, has filed an affidavit, he has neither appeared as PartyinPerson nor through an advocate. As the issue involved in the petition is a purely legal one, it is not considered necessary to issue notice of Rule to respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the communication dated 26.08.2011, addressed by the Competent Authority (respondent No.2), to the learned advocates of the petitioners, rejecting the claim application filed by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print SCA/11899/201120/20 INTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 11899 of 2011ForApproval and Signature: HONOURABLETHE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA=====================================================1WhetherReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2Tobe referred to the Reporter or not ?3Whethertheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?4Whetherthis case involves a substantial question of law as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print SCA/12621/20115/5ORDERINTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12621 of2011=========================================================DHANUBEND/O GANDABHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL & 12 - PetitionersVersusSTATEOF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents=========================================================Appearance :MRAB MUNSHI forPetitioners : 1 - 13MS. V.S.PATHAK LD.D AGP for Respondent :1None for Respondents : 2 -3=========================================================CORAM: H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print SCA/14831/20118/8ORDERINTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14831 of 2011=========================================================MINAKSHIW/O HARSHADKUMAR BRAHMBHATT - Petitioner(s)VersusINDUBENW/O MOHANBHAI SHANKLA - Respondent(s)=========================================================Appearance:MRSAURABH M PATEL forPetitioner(s) : 1,None for Respondent(s) :1,=========================================================CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTADate: 0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print LPA/2998/201017/17 INTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADLETTERSPATENT APPEAL No. 2998 of 2010InSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4115 of 2010ForApproval and Signature: HONOURABLETHE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA=========================================================1WhetherReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2To bereferred to the Reporter or not ?3Whethertheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?4Whetherthis case in...
Tag this Judgment!