Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)205CTR(Guj)252; [2007]288ITR196(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. This Income-tax Reference is arising out of the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.9.1990 in R.A. No. 413/Ahd/1989 and R.A. No. 443/Ahd/1989, both for assessment year 1980-81. R.A. No. 413/Ahd/1989 is filed by the assessee and at the instance of the assessee, the tribunal has referred to the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 to the extent of the claim relatable to an amount of Rs. 1,83,492/-2. R.A. No. 443/Ahd/1989 is filed by the Revenue and at the instance of the Revenue, following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this Court. (a) Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty referable to income of Rs. 1,00,112/-The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:3. The assessee is a private ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR105
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Union of India, through General Manager, appellant has filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment, award and decree dated 18-2-1993 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application No. 883 of 1988 and Misc. Civil Application No. 957 of 1988. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the Misc. Civil Application No. 957 of 1988 and as regards Misc. Civil Application No. 833 of 1988, the learned Judge has held that the award filed by the Arbitrator, subject to the modification stated in the judgment, is ordered to be made Rule of the Court. Railways shall pay to the contractor a sum of Rs. 50,679/- with interest on Rs. 33,390/- at the rate of 9% per annum from 27-5-1988 till the date of payment. The parties shall bear their own costs.2. The learned trial Judge has observed that the Arbitrator has erred in awarding Rs. 1,921/- as interest in the final bill amount although the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1971]41CompCas1078(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. This matter raises the following preliminary issues : '(1) Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 543 of the Companies Act (2) Whether the petition is barred by limitation (3) If the alleged acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance were committed prior to the coming into operation of the Companies Act, 1956, whether the petition is maintainable (4) Whether the petition is premature inasmuch as the liquidator of the Colaba Land and Mills Co. Ltd. has yet not declared a final dividend on the shares of that company (5) Whether the petition is premature inasmuch as the sale proceeds of 1,922 shared of the Colaba Land and Mills Co. Ltd. and 10,045 shares of Vasant Investment Corporation Ltd. are not realised (6) Whether the petition have been filed without the permission of this court is maintainable at law (7) Whether the petition is mala fide and without due regard to the interests of the shareholder (8) Whether the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2701; (2004)IILLJ282Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. Since the point involved in this group of Special Civil Applications is common and since all these petitions are filed against the common Award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, all these petitions, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, are decided by this common judgment.2. The point which is involved in these petitions is in connection with the status of the employees, who have been transferred from one Undertaking / Company to another Company, by an Agreement, and, ultimately, the effect of cancellation of such agreement. The concerned workmen were, initially, appointed by Apart Private Limited, a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. At the relevant time, they were discharging their duties in the Welding Electrodes Division of the said Company. In the year 1987, an Agreement was entered into between the said Apart Private Limited and one Lotherme Electrodes (India) Private Limited, by whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR124
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. RULE. Learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa for M/s. Thakkar Associates waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned GP Mr. Sunit Shah waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - State Authorities.3. Today, all the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties requested this Court to take up this group of matters for hearing and final disposal. Therefore, this Court has taken up this group of matters for hearing and final disposal today with the consent of all the learned advocates.4. The petitioners challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Gandhidham (Kachchh) in Reference (LCG) No. 4 of 2005 to 48 of 2005 with No. 62 of 2005 to 94 of 2005 with No. 100 of 2005 to 102 of 2005 dated 30th September 2006, wherein, Labour Court, Gandhidham has rejected all the References on the ground that Assistant Labour Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR498]; (2001)4GLR2997; (2001)ILLJ924Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Joshi waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent.By consent of the parties, the matter is heard today.2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act passed in Application No. 136 of 1996 as well as order of the Appellate Authority under the Act. The said orders are annexed at Annexure 'D' with the present petition. The Respondent herein had preferred an application, being Application No. 136 of 1996, before the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for getting the benefit of gratuity after his retirement from service. Before the Authority, it was the case of the present Petitioner that the concerned employee, after completing 58 years of age on April 1, 1984, was continued as a Director of the Company and he had voluntarily retired on June 30, 1996 and since he was a Director of the Company, he was not entitled to any gratuity as he himself was a part ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2008Guj57; 2008GLH(1)386
ORDERAkshay H. Mehta, J.1. Rule in the matters in which it is not issued. Mr. Sunit Shah, Ld. GP and Mr. Krunal Pandya, Ld. AGP waive service of rule on behalf of respondents.Since in all these petitions a common challenge to notification/resolution bearing No. GMC/1 2006-1548/C dated 22-5-2007 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat has been made, they are heard together and now they are being disposed of by this common CAV judgment.2. The petitioners are practicing as Ayurvedic doctors in the State of Gujarat. According to them, they have obtained degree to practice as required under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 ('IMCC Act' for short) and they have also obtained registration certificates issued by the medical institutions/board of the State of Bihar and in two cases of State of Madhya Pradesh, they are eligible to practice Indian medicine in the State of Gujarat. It is their say that they are doing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2463
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The State of Gujarat is before this Court being aggrieved by order dated 4-1-2007 passed below application, Exhibit 1 in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismise the application, Exh, 1 dated 9-11-2006 filed under See. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying that he be tendered a pardon.Rule. Mr. Naik, learned advocate appearing for the respondent waives service of rule. The respondent has also approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 27 of 2007 challenging the very same order wherein this Court issued rule on 25-1-2007 returnable on 28-2-2007,2. When the matter came up for consideration the learned APP prayed for time on the ground that he has received Instructions to challenge the order impugned. The matter was adjourned from time to time. The State has filed the present Criminal Revision Application,3. Brief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)3GLR2167
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This group of 13 appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the common judgment dated 25-8-2008 of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 30705 of 2007 and connected petitions challenging removal of the appellants from the office of members of Bopal Gram Panchayat under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Elections to Bopal Gram Panchayat were held on 25-12-2006. One Shantaben Bachubhai Patel was elected as Sarpanch. The present appellants, 13 in number, along with 13 other persons were elected as members of Bopal Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat'). The first meeting of the Panchayat was held on 17-1-2007. By a show-cause notice dated 7-8-2007, the Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat including the present appellants, were called upon to show cause why they should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch and members of the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas204(Guj); [2007]79SCL47(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgement shall dispose of Company Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2006. 2. Company Petition No. 10 of 2006 has been filed under Sections 78, 100, 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) by the Company named Core Healthcare Limited, a company incorporated under the Act in the matter of a composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of compromise with the lenders and reconstruction, reorganisation of capital and demerger between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited and their respective shareholders. The petitioner-Company has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) The Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement referred to in para-15 of this petition and being Annex. with this petition hereto, be sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court so as to be binding on all Equity Shareholders, Class 'A' Lenders and Class 'B' Lenders of the Petitioner Company and on the Petitioner Company;(b) That the Petitioner Company do within 30 days from the date of sealing of the...
Tag this Judgment!