Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR713
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The order of detention dated April 5, 1993, which is passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Home Department, in exercise of powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short) against the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling the goods, is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Though the order of detention was passed on April 5, 1993, it could be executed on November 24, 1993. The competent authority issued Declaration No. 19 of 1993 under Section 9(1) of the Act, as it was satisfied that the detenu was likely to smuggle goods into Indian Customs Waters contiguous to the State of Gujarat. Before that, the State Government had forwarded report in respect of detention order to the Central Government on April 6, 1993 as required by Section 3(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)4GLR425
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Shri Y.N. Oza, learned Sr. Advocate is appearing for the petitioner. Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Addl. A.G. is appearing for the respondents with Shri A.D. Oza, learned Government Pleader and Shri M.G. Doshit for M/s. M.G. Doshit & Co.2. Rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence the judiciary is not only the third pillar but the central pillar of the democratic State. In a democracy like ours, where there is written constitution which is above all individuals and institutions and where the power of judicial review is vested in the superior courts, the Judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform namely to oversee that all the individuals and institutions including executive and the legislature act within the frame work of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peacef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)175CTR(Guj)498
R. K. Abichandani, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Officer was justified in passing order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The matter pertains to assessment year 1980-81 in respect of which the assessment of the assessee family trust was completed on 24-11-1980, determining the total income at Rs. 7,03,490. One half of that income i.e., Rs. 3,51,745 was taxed in the hands of 25 beneficiaries as per clause 3(B)(i)(a) of the trust deed, dated 23-4-1979, shown in Schedule I thereto and the other 50 per cent i.e., Rs. 3,51,745 was assessed in the hands of the trustees of the assessee-trust under section 161 of the said Act on the respective share of each of the beneficiaries mentioned in clause 3(B)(i)(b) of the trust deed and Schedule II thereto.2.1. In the trust deed, it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR545
N.K. Vakil, J.1. These three Special Civil Applications relate to agricultural lands belonging to a religious trust claimed to be a public religious trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Most of the facts in these three petitions are common. As the points of law that may arise were also accepted to be common, they were fixed to be heard together. At the hearing, however, we found that the main points of law arising in the Civil Application No. 475 of 1961, the first of the three, would not arise in the latter two and some of the facts also differ. But all the same it will be convenient to deal with them together and dispose them of by one common judgment. We shall, however, set out the special facts and features of the latter two as and when necessary for coming to the conclusion in respect thereof. We had also allowed the learned advocates appearing for the respondents in the latter two petitions to intervene and argue the law points.2. The petitioner in all the three Writ Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)1GLR525
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This suo motu petition was initiated on the basis of a report of a Committee consisting of Mr. M.D. Pandya, made on the basis of his visits to the industrial units situated at Saijpur-Gopalpur area, Dani Limda and Shah-Alam. From the order dated 24.11.1997, by which these proceedings were commenced, it transpires that considering the report of Mr. Pandya, an order was made on 15.7.1997, pursuant to which the officers of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and a representation of the Municipal Commissioner, collected certain information and visited the units and submitted a unit-wise report in detail, in which it was pointed out by the Advisor (Pollution Control), Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation that in all there were 69 units in Behrampura area, which did not have legal drainage connection, nor had they obtained any consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, as on 30th Sept. 97. It was also pointed out that 181 units situated in Dani Limda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1978)19GLR737
D.A. Desai, J.1. A question of considerable importance has been raised in this appeal arising from execution proceedings initiated by respondents Nos. I to 3 while executing the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 152 of 1965. The appellant and respondents Nos. 4 are original judgment debtors and respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are original decree holders.2. Facts relevant to the discussion of the point raised herein lie within a narrow compass. Decree holders (referred to as landlords) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 152 of 1961 for recovering possession of the property situate in village Anklav in Borsad taluka of Kaira District from the judgment-debtor (referred to as tenant). Amongst the property which was the subject matter of suit there were premises consisting of a house and two rooms (for short suit premises) which were in possession of the tenant. This suit ended in a consent decree, by which defendant tenant agreed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2002]122TAXMAN782(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. These two references raise common questions in the case of the same assessee for different assessment years on the aspect as to whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the new building constructed in place of the old recognised Palace.2. For the assessment years 1977-78, the assessee had declared the net wealth of Rs. 11,12,243 on 1-7-1977. The return was filed in the capacity of individual during the proceedings, the assessment was made in the status of 'Hindu undivided family', as requested by the assessee. According to the assessee, he had succeeded to the Gaddi of the former State of Vadia on the death of his father. According to him, he was in possession of a Palace at Vadia which was exempted for taxation purposes under the notification issued under Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. The said palace was declared as the official residenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1999)2GLR1422
M.S. Parikh, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule waived by the learned A.P.P., as well as learned Advocates appearing for the rival parties.This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner, father of minor girl (***). He has prayed for calling upon the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to produce the petitioner's daughter before this Court and to hand-over her custody to the petitioner, who is her natural guardian (***). He has his wife (*?) and three minor children (**?). He has been cultivating his agricultural land (***). His daughter (***), whose birth date is 7-11-1981 as registered in the records of (***) Gram Panchayat, is his eldest daughter, followed by son (***) aged 14 years and daughter (***) aged 13 years, respectively studying in 9th standard and 8th standard. Minor Girl (***) has failed in S.S.C. Examination and was lured to take up a course of Beautician by respondent No. 4. She was accordingly attending the Beauty Parlor run by the respondent No. 4 (***). Respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!