Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1981Guj67; (1980)2GLR239
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. All these Petitions are directed against the land acquisition proceedings, Notification undersection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issue - d., on 16th June 1972 and was published in Gujarat Government Gazette-om-13tir July, 1972. It was in respect of four survey numbers with their sub-divisions. Therefore, as many as five petitions have been filed challenging that notification. Thereafter on 11th of April, 1974 Town Planning Scheme in respect of the area in question was finalized and notices to the parties were issued under the Bom bay Town Planning Act. On 11th. July, 1975 declaration undersection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and it was published in Gujarat Government Gazette, Extraordinary. on the same an On 15th October, 1979. an addendum to the declaration under S. 6 was issued Prid it was oublished on 27th December. 1979. The addendum was issued because the survey numbers in respect of which the impugned acquisition proceedings were instituted had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)3GLR1873
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this batch of 11 petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners against whom First Information Reports have been registered at various police stations of different Districts of State of Gujarat, details of which are shown below in this judgment, for alleged commission of offences mainly under Sections 295-A, 505(c), 120B and 114 of IPC, seek to challenge the registration of the said FIRs and have prayed to quash and set aside the said FIRs as also the investigation pursuant thereto, by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.3, State of Gujarat and its subordinate officers.2. Common questions of law and facts are involved in this batch of petitions and FIRs which are sought to be quashed are filed for alleged commission of similar offences in all the FIRs by disciples of Swadhyaya Group headed by late Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavle. Further, the petitioners are almost common in all the petitions and, therefore, with the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2009Guj100
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question, we have, been called upon to decide on a reference made by the learned Single Judge, is 'whether the time-limit of one week provided in Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act') for communicating the non-acceptance of the representation/objections made by the borrower in response to a notice issue under Sub-section (2) of Section 13, is mandatory or directory?2. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4045 of 2007 took the view that the same is a mandatory requirement, and non-compliance of that mandatory requirement within one week of the receipt of the representation/objections filed by the borrower would vitiate the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. When this case came up for hearing before another Judge, learned Judge took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)1GLR714
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. This group of petitions is referred to this Bench to decide the question whether it abates on the grounds mentioned in the affidavit of the respondents. These petitions were filed by the petitioner-mill companies which are cotton textile units manufacturing blended yarn which became dutiable for the first time under Tariff Item 18-E which was added on March 16, 1972 in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1,944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioners that blended yarn was coated with sizing materials to impart strength to the yarn in the weaving process in all these composite mills and in that process the weight of the blended yarn increased by some 12 to 14 per cent. It is the case of the petitioners, that blended yarn remained blended yarn even after the sizing process. The excise duty was paid on the sizing materials. In all these mills the duty was charged by the excise authorities under Tariff Item 18-E on weight basis per kilogram ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj159; (1965)GLR855
1. The original plaintiff has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Halar at Jamnagar, on the ground 'that a suit for declaration that a person is a Benamidar was not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The plaintiff had originally filed the suit against eight defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 were individuals who were partners of two firms which were joined as defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 and which firms had also some other unknown partners. Defendants Nos. 5 to 8 were Income-tax Officers The Union of India was added as a necessary party to the suit on 10th January 1948 pursuant to the order of the trial Court, dated 5th November 1957, to enable the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate the questions raised in the suit It was the plaintiff's case that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the two firms, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had been residing at Bombay and doing business there while he resided at Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1971]79ITR373(Guj)
Divan, J.1. In this reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following two question have been referred to this High Court at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 17, read with section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and the assessment made in pursuance thereto was valid (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, provisions of section 20 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, were rightly attracted and the direction to re-do the assessment was in accordance with the same ?' 2. The short facts leading to this reference are that the assessee was assessed for wealth-tax in the status of Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being November 2, 1956. Before the enactment of the Act, which came into force from April 1, 1957, the assessee was being assessed to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR368]
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr. KS Nanavati for the petitioner Co.; Mr. M.S. Rao, learned AGP for the respondent State. Notice issued by this court has been served upon the respondent No.3. The docket suggests the name of Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent NO. 3 but nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3 when the matter was called out. Hence, the matter has been taken up for hearing and has been considered for final disposal in absence of respondent no.3. In this petition, initially while issuing the notice to the respondents, ad.interim relief in terms of para 13(B) of the petition was granted by this court. 2. According to the petitioner company, all the three unions raised demands by their separate charter of demands against the petitioner company on different dates seeking wage revision and change in service conditions. The demands raised by the three unions were admitted in conciliation proceedings bearing cases no. 145/01, 146/01 and 143/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj175; (1965)GLR554
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition challenges a determination made by the Collector under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The determination came to he made by the Collector under the following circumstances. The first and second petitioners owned a piece of land admeasuring 55 square yards situate at Lal Darwaja in the city of Ahmedabad. They agreed to grant a lease of the said piece of land to the third petitioner on the terms and conditions contained in a draft indenture of lease which was agreed upon between the parties. The third petitioner brought the draft indenture of lease to the Collector and applied to have the opinion of the Collector as to the duty with which it was chargeable under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. This application was made on 20th June 1961 and was accompanied by the requisite fee directed by the Collector. On receipt of the application, it appears, the Collector felt doubt as to the amount of duty with which the draft indenture of lease was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)106CTR(Guj)374; [1993]201ITR208(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J. 1. On being moved under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, by four Reference Applications Nos. 523 to 526/Add. of 1976-77, and also being moved by the assessee by Reference Applications Nos. 517 and 518/Ahd. of 1976-77, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions at the instance of the Department for our opinion : For the assessment year 1968-69 only : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of bonus and other allowances made by the assessee to its employees each drawing more than Rs. 7,500 as annual salary in excess of 20 per cent. of such salary were not benefit, amenity or perquisite within the meaning of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 196 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The Appellate Tribunal was right in law, in holding that the loan agreement in question prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj162; 1963CriLJ17; (1963)0GLR602
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is a Revision Application by the State-against an order of discharge, discharging the three opponents against whom a police report was sent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of discharge was confirmed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. In revision before me it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the order of discharge in so far as Opponents Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned is erroneous. The learned Government Pleader has not contended that the order of discharge of Opponent No. 1 is erroneous.2. The learned counsel for the opponents, however, contends that there are concurrent findings of fact of both the lower Courts, that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, that it is open to a Magistrate before committing the accused for trial to consider the case of self-defence suggested by the accused in their, examination and that the Courts below having held, that the case of self-defence is proved, this Court should not ...
Tag this Judgment!