Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008(223)ELT565(Guj); (2007)2GLR1744
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Notification No. 19 (RE-2006)/2004-2009 dated 4-7-2006 whereby retrospective effect is given to Notification dated 27-6-2006 and Notification dated 3-7-2006 so as to be operative with effect from 22-6-2006. The following prayers are made:(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and/ or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification No. 19 (RE-2006) 2004-2009 dated 4-7-2006 passed by respondent No. 2 giving retrospective effect to the Notification No. 15 (RE-2006) 2004-2009 dated 27-6-2006, and No. 17 (RE-2006) 2004-2009 dated 3-7-2006 w.e.f. 22-6-2006, holding that the said Notifications are illegal, unjust, bad in law, against the provisions of settled principles of law, discriminative, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, contrary to principles of natural justice, and also contrary to the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897, as the said Notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]82CompCas35(Guj); 1994CriLJ2874
S.D. Shah, J.1. This group of applications filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raises an interesting question of interpretation of section 138, read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the brevity). The question raised is as to whether penal or criminal liability sought to be imposed on the drawer of a cheque by section 138 of the said Act is limited to two specified cases of dishonour of the cheque by the banker or whether the section would apply and liability could be imposed in all cases of dishonour of the cheque by the banker for reason referable either to insufficiency of funds in the account from which the cheque is drawn or where the drawer has failed to make arrangement for the funds so that the cheque may be honoured. In other woods, the question is one of interpretation of a penal provision in the statute - should it be strictly construed so as to confine operation of section 138 to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1979]118ITR544(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration in the present case is the scope and interpretation of s. 80K of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The special civil application has been filed by the two petitioners challenging the decision of the respondent herein, ITO, Company Circle-IV, Ahmedabad, in deciding to grant relief under s. 80K only to that portion of the exempted dividend which has been worked out at Rs. 77,42,921 and it is prayed that the respondent should be directed to issue a certificate in accordance with law showing therein the portion of the exempted dividend of Rs. 95,50,889 in respect of the Polyester Fibre plant and the Sulzer plant of the first petitioner-company. The decision of the respondent is dated August 24, 1978. 3. The first petitioner-company is a limited company and is engaged in manufacture of textiles, chemicals, plastics and polyester fibre. The petitioner company's shareholders number about 52,000. The relevant accounting period for the purpose of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)22VST569(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. All the above numbered petitions, which are instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, are directed against Public Circular dated September 2, 2005 issued by the Sales Tax Commissioner, State of Gujarat, whereby it is declared that the view expressed in Public Circular dated February 19, 2001 that the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Coastal Chemicals Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, A.P. and Ors. : AIR1999SC3855 holding that the natural gas used as fuel cannot be treated as consumable goods, is based on the language of Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which is quite different from the language of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra) is not applicable to the cases arising under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, is no longer valid in view of the decision of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)3GLR2065
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mrs. Parikh, learned Advocate for petitioner, Mr. N. J. Shah, learned A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. S. Vasavada, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3. Rule. Mr. Vasavada, Mr. Desai and Mr. Shah have waived service of notice of Rule. At the request and with the consent of all parties the petition is taken up for final hearing.1.1. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs:(9/A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the Notice dated 13-9-2007 issued by the respondent A.L.C. and authority under Payment of Wages Act, Mahabubnagar (State-Andhra Pradesh) in P.W. Application No. 8 of 2007 (Annexure-A) and show-cause notice No. E/824/2006 dated 10-8-2006 issued to the petitioner by the A.L.C. Mahabubnagar (State-A.P.) under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (R.E.C.) Act, (Annexure-B).(9/B) Your Lordship...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1598
R.H. Shukla, J.1. These Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 183 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, recording the conviction of the appellants-accused for the offences under Section 8(c), read with Sections 21 and 29, of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') for possession and illegal smuggling and trafficking of heroin as a part of the conspiracy. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2327 of 2006 is the original accused No. 1 and has been convicted and sentenced to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 Lakhs, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 2007-Hemaram Chaudhary is the original accused No. 2 and he has been convicted and sentenced to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 Lakhs, in default to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)220
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of petitioner in both the matters.2. The draft amendment is placed on record in both the matters explaining the delay in filing both the petitions challenging the awards in question.3. Accordingly, draft amendment is allowed with a direction to the petitioner to carry out the same within a period of two week from today. Accordingly, delay in filing both the petitions are condoned int the interest of justice.4. It is necessary to note that in Special Civil Application No. 27731 of 2007, the award passed by Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 470 of 1990 dated 21st September 2003 is challenged by petitioner being a State Authority after a period of four years. In Special Civil Application No. 27731 of 2007, the name of respondent - workman is Raj Amarsinh Fulsinh. In Special Civil Application No. 27732 of 2007, the name of respondent - workman is Manilal Ratanji Vasava, where, Labour Court has dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR600]; (2008)IILLJ175Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant - third party, namely, Navjagrut Labour Union, a Regd. Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 represented by its General Secretary Shri Manoj R. Rajput, who was duly authorised by 106 employees, has filed this application seeking permission of this Court to be joined as respondent No. 3 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1164/1998 and also in Special Civil Application No. 8030/1997.2. The application was opposed by the opponent No. 1 - original appellant - original petitioner i.e. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited. An affidavit-in-reply as well as written submissions were filed during the course of hearing. Similarly, application is also opposed by opponent No. 2 - orig. respondent No. 1 i.e. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha, a representative, Union. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on March 29, 2007. The applicant has also filed an affidavit on March 15, 2007 along with the affidavits of more than 200 employees stating that they have left the Electricity Mazdoor. Sab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2647
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. This is a petition by Gujarat State Branch of Indian Medical Association whereby Notification dated 25th April, 1979 issued by Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, has been challenged. Prayer is made for its quashing.2. By the impugned Notification dated 25-4-1979, the State of Gujarat, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Gujarat Medical Council Act, 1967, amended the Schedule appended to the said Act to add medical course prescribed as 'Diploma in Nature Cure and Hygiene conferred by Faculty of Nature Cure and Hygiene, Gujarat State' for the purpose of registering students of D. N. C. H. (Diploma in Nature Cure and Hygiene) course to enable them to practise medicine in Nature Cure as also in Allopathy.3. By this petition, contention advanced is that the impugned amendment, by the Notification, to the said provisions of the Schedule is contrary to the Medical Council of India Act and would be detrime...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1150
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the District Development Officer, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ('the Act') whereby the appellant was removed from the office of Sarpanch of village Dholera, which order was confirmed by the Additional Development Commissioner by his order dated 25th September, 2007.2. The appellant was elected to the office of Sarpanch of Dholera Gram Panchayat on 12th December, 2007 (sic.) and took charge on 17th January, 2007. Within a short period of about five months, the District Development Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 20th June, 2007 against the appellant calling upon her to show-cause as to why she should not be removed from the office of Sarpan...
Tag this Judgment!