Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1986(10)ECC359; 1987(10)LC7(Gujarat); 1986(25)ELT879(Guj); (1987)1GLR641
Majumdar, J.1. In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, a short question arises for our consideration. It is as follows : Whether the first petitioner company is entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 framed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the two inputs viz. cement and asbestor raw (fibre) which are utilised by petitioner No. 1 company at its Ahmedabad Office for manufacturing finished excisable goods viz. asbestos cement products. 2. Introductory facts : A few relevant facts leading to these petitions and the controversy raised therein deserve to be noted at the outset. Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder of the said company. Both these petitioners are common to both the petitions. Petitioner No. 1 company owns a factory at Digvijay Nagar gram (Sikka) in Jamnagar district. It is engaged in manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj266; 1968CriLJ1418; (1967)8GLR1061
ORDER(1) The petitioners, who were the original accused Nos. 1 and 2, were charge-sheeted to the Court of the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad. They were accused of offences punishable under Sections 420-120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was instituted upon a police report. On 11th January, 1967, it was ascertained that copies of the police-papers, referred to in Section 173 of the Civil Procedure Code were furnished to both the accused and the case was adjourned to 12th January, 1967 for the statement and charge by the learned City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, Mr. H. K. Damani. On account of the sick-note of the Defence advocate, the case was adjourned to 16th January, 1967 for the above said purpose. On that day, the learned City Magistrate framed the charge, Ex. 2 against the present petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The statements of the accused were recorded and the case was adjourned to 23rd January 1967 for evidence. On 23rd January, 1967, the petitioner No. 1, Bhikhabhai gave a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR683; (2009)23VST298(Guj)
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. This group of petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the prayers, inter alia, that a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to make the earlier exemption granted to the petitioners by the certificates issued by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 available to the petitioners for the purpose of exemption under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 at least for the duration as mentioned in the aforesaid certificate (passed under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969), if not for more time.2. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant exemption to the industry of the petitioners under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 from the date of coming into force of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the same terms as exemption has been granted earlier under the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1974)0GLR616; (1975)ILLJ169Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-company has raised two questions in this petition : (1) Whether the manufacture of clinical thermometer falls under the entry of 'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products' specified in Schedule I of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', when read with Item (18) of Explanation (a) 'mathematical and scientific instruments', and (2) Whether the decision of the Central Government under S. 19A resolving a doubt in this connection only on November 7, 1968, could be implemented retrospectively prior to the date of the decision from August 1, 1965, as intimated by the authorities : The petitioner-company's factory was set up on August 1, 1962, with Japanese collaboration and commercial production started in 1965. By a letter of respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, date September 4, 1965 the petitioner was asked to implement the Act and the Scheme. Thereafter, the company took up the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)3; I(2005)BC471; 2004CriLJ3628; (2005)1GLR638
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) the petitioner against whom Criminal Complaint bearing No. 558 of 2003 is filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) for commission of alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short) in which process has been issued, has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint and process issued thereunder, on the grounds stated in the petition.2. The petitioner is the original accused whereas respondent No. 2 is the original complainant in the above referred criminal complaint. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the petitioner is referred to as 'the accused' whereas respondent No. 2 is referred to as 'the complainant' hereinafter in this judgment.3. As per the averments made in the petition, the accused came in contact with the complainant and therefore as and when the accused was in need o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1966]61ITR30(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This reference involves two questions, one relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 33(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the other relates to the status of the firm of Messrs. F. Y. Khambhaty which carried on business at Kano in Nigeria and in which the assessee was a partner along with one Lahorewala and was having a share of sixty per cent. as against the share of forty per cent. of the said Lahorewala. The first question was referred to this court by the Tribunal in the reference made by the Tribunal on June 10, 1960, while the second question has been referred to us as a result of an order passed by this court on November 29, 1962, in Income-tax Application No. 13 of 1962. 2. The two questions arise as a result of assessments having been made against the assessee, F. Y. Khambhaty and the said firm of Kano, hereinafter referred to as the Kano firm, for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54. The relative previous years, in so far as the assessee' s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj26; 1970CriLJ46; (1970)0GLR130
ORDER1. The charge against one Ibrahimkhan Fazalkhan in Criminal Case No. 1201 of 1964. In the Court of the Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, was that he had committed theft of 5 catchpit jalis ordinarily known as covers of the gutters, of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, in the early morning of 1-10-1964, so as to be liable for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was found going in auto rickshaw bearing No. GTD 285 wherein he had put the said stolen property. He was stopped, and as he could not explain about the possession of those catch-pit jalis that property as also the auto rickshaw came to be attached under a panchnama made in respect thereof. During that trial one Gokaldas Kanjibhai was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution, as the owner of that auto rickshaw. According to his evidence he had given that rickshaw to one Babubhai Nurbhai on hire on 30-9-1964 with instructions to return the same to him at Amedpura before the next m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1378; [2001]250ITR641(Guj)
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Special Civil Application No. 6213 of 1986 was filed on 28-1-1986 challenging the proceedings in the Civil Suit No. 1196 of 1986 and the Misc. Application No. 234 of 1986 filed therein in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar including an ex parte injunction order dated 25-11-1986 passed in the aforesaid proceedings. In Special Civil Application No. 6214 of 1986 while challenging the proceedings in Misc. Application No. 236 of 1986 (in Civil Suit No. 1197 of 1986) in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamangar including an ex parte injunction order dated 25-11-1986 passed in these proceedings a further declaration was sought that Civil proceedings cannot be instituted in any civil Court in respect of search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred; a further declaration was sought that the civil Court is not even otherwise competent to entertain any such suit and grant any relief in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj40; (1969)GLR225
A.D. Desai, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the rate at which the electricity was to be supplied to the respondent in respect of the street lights and water works motors. The facts according to the plaintiffs are that formerly there was a company which was known as Wadhwan State Electric Power Distributing Company, and it held a licence under Indian Electricity Act for supplying electric energy within the limits of Wadhwan City. The respondent Municipality entered into agreements with the said Company for the supply of electric energy to its water works motors as well as street lights. The agreements with respect to supply of electric energy to water works and the street lights were entered on September 28, 1943. The said Company was a partnership firm of which the former Wadhwan State and one Natvarlal Dhanjibhai Mehta were partners, On the integration of the former Wadhwan State and the formation of United State of Saurashtra, the State of Saurashtra became a partner in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR76; (1965)IILLJ636Guj
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand of a case passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1961, on 7 August 1963, on his reversing the decision of the trial court disposing of the suit upon a preliminary issue. The issue was as regards the maintainability of a civil suit for damages by a workman in a civil court in respect of an injury to his eye resulting from the alleged negligence of his employer and the persons appointed by the employer to provide timely and efficient medical aid for treatment of the injury received by the workman in the course of his employment, when the workman had allegedly instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Judge has found that the suit as framed was maintainable and his finding is based mainly on the ground that the suit was one for damages suffered by the workman as a result of the negligence or want of care on the part of the employer and the do...
Tag this Judgment!