Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1965]16STC973(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This petition raises an interesting question relating to the construction of section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 1946, and in the event of the construction contended for on behalf of the State being accepted, challenges the validity of the section the ground of infraction of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. In order to appreciate the various questions arising in the petition, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the facts on which the petition is founded. The facts are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows :- 2. The petitioners are dealers carrying on business in art silk, cotton and handloom cloth and at all material times they held a certificate of registration under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the period 26th January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950, which we shall for the sake of convenience describe as the first period, the petitioners effected various sales outsi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)2GLR1798
Akil Kureshi, J.1. RULE. Learned AGP, Mr. Hasurkar, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Mehul Rathod, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2. At the joint request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this petition was heard for final disposal today itself.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents of continuing him under suspension and has also prayed for a direction for issuing a posting order to him and for being paid salary and allowances for the period during which he was placed under suspension without authority of law.3. Short facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner, who is employed as a Chief Engineer (Vigilance & Enforcement) by the respondent No. 2-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board') was placed under suspension by an order dated 27-8-2003. In the suspension order, it is sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR498
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the above matters have arisen from the same Judgment and Order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharuch, on 15.12.2007, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2007. Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2008 Hiteshkumar Madhusudan Adhvaryu was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and vide the impugned judgment and order, the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge awarded death penalty to the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while he was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR33
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In this reference, following question has been referred to the Full Bench:In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Ors. v. Amjad Ali and Ors. : 1999CriLJ5060 , when a person is ordered to pay maintenance under Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 fails without sufficient cause to comply with such order, whether the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 is empowered to sentence such person to imprisonment for a term exceeding one month.2. Factual background leading to the question is as follows:Special Criminal Application No. 897 of 2008 has been filed by one Rama Muru Pariya, through Jail against the judgment and order dated 15th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhalia, Dist: Jamnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 141 of 2007. By the said decision, the learned Judge was pleased to modify the order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Guj)274; [1986]159ITR253(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. In all four questions have been referred to us : two at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, and two at the instance of the assessee. The questions are as under : By the Commissioner : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the pontoons are covered by the expression 'ship' and, therefore, are entitled to development rebate at a higher rate of 40% instead of 25% on the basis of plant (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in allowing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of Sikka 4th Expansion Unit, Bombay Cement Mills 1st Expansion, and Asbestos Products Division 1st Expansion Unit By the assessee : (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 78,000 being fees paid to M/s. Indopal British Consulting Enterprises was not a revenue expenditure (4) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj218; 1968CriLJ1173; (1968)GLR886
(1) This is a an appeal, filed by the original accused, who has been convicted of offences, punishable under Section 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer the nine months' rigorous imprisonment and there months' rigorous imprisonment for the said offences respectively. He is also sentenced a pay of fine of Rs. 300 in addition to sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to suffer one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine, if recovered, Rs. 150 are ordered to be paid to Shankerlal Chhabildas by way of compensation for the injuries caused to him. This order has been passed by the learned City Magistrate, 9th Court, Shri N. R. Tatia in a Criminal Case No. 464 of 1965.(2) The prosecution story is briefly stated as under:--The injured Shankerlal Chhablidas Barot and the appellant Jayantilal Vrajlal Barot are in two opposite factions of their community. The injured Shankerlal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009(164)LC202(Gujarat); 2009(243)ELT684(Guj); (2009)2GLR1696
ORDER / CEX /MGR/2008 (Annexure-H), and order dated 8/1/2008 bearing No. 07/CEX/MGR/2008 (Annexure-C) made by the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai ('Settlement Commission').2. The facts are that pursuant to show cause notice dated 18/5/2005 during pendency of proceedings, an application came to be moved before Settlement Commission by the petitioner company on 27/5/2007 admitting duty liability of Rs. 23,80,732/-.3. Before the application dated 27/5/2007 was filed, a separate show cause notice in relation to a different period came to be issued on 30/11/2006. During pendency of the proceedings relatable to the second show cause notice, petitioner submitted a letter dated 30/5/2007 before the Settlement Commission with reference to the second show cause notice dated 30/11/2006, and admitted duty liability of Rs. 19,12,1296/-.4. On 8/1/2008 Settlement Commission heard the matter and accepted application dated 27/5/2007 in relation to show cause not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)2GLR1462
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 7-8-2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 27 of 2001 under the provisions of Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brevity).2. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has set aside the judgment and order dated 25-10-2000 passed by Mr. S. G. Bharwad, Deputy Collector (Land Reforms & Appeals), Ahmedabad in an appeal which was preferred after delay of 40 years against the order of the Mamlatdar passed in the year 1960.Earlier, against the same order, occupants of the land (petitioners in Special Civil Application. No. 3340 of 2002) had filed revision application after 34 years under Section 76A of the Act, That revision application was allowed by the Deputy Collector on 4-4-1995. When a revision application was filed by the State Government against the said order dated 4-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR381
1. The present group of petitions are filed by the State of Gujarat, through its Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 29.02.1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in 89 Revision Applications being TEN B.S. 229/93 to 261/93, 317/93 to 345/93, 66/94, 114/94, 249/94 to 263/94, 275/94, 131/95, 132/95 and 151/95 to 157/95, whereby the Tribunal has allowed all the aforesaid 89 Revision Applications filed by the present respondent No.1 i.e. Shri Sachin Udyognagar Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Surat, quashing and setting aside the orders of Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat and Deputy Collector (L.R.), Surat.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 Society was formed for the exclusive object and purpose of setting up an industrial township in the area covering the villages Sachin, Vanz, Lapore, Popada and Bhatia in Choryasi Taluka of Surat District. At the relevant po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1297; (2007)2GLR1684
C.K. Buch, J.1. The present appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Special Judge, Amreli in a prosecution instituted for the offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Judge, vide order of conviction and sentence dated 31st January, 1991, on conclusion of the trial of Essential Commodities Act Case No. 10 of 1985, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced the accused to suffer three months. Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.2. The impugned order is assailed on various grounds mentioned in para 3 of the memo of appeal and Mr. H.N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing with learned Senior counsel Mr. P.M. Thakkar has taken me through these grounds of challenge on behalf of the appellant accused and so also the judgment.2.1 It is argued that the finding of the lower court is er...
Tag this Judgment!