Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment M.R. Shah 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1623 of 2015 : By way of Special Civil Application No.1623 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -assessee M/s.Tata Teleservices has prayed for the following reliefs : ” (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the impugned Summons dated 9/12/2014, impugned Notices dated 18/12/2014 and impugned Letters dated 18/12/2014, 29/12/2014 and 12/1/2015 issued by the respondent No. 2 are barred by limitation and be pleased to strike down the same as being wholly without jurisdiction; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, to call for, examine the records in relation to and quash the impugned Summons dated 9/12.2014, impugned Notices dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may refer to the facts arising in SCA No. 17307 of 2015. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the petitioner filed return of income on 17.10.2011 declaring nil income. Such return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and thus accepted without any scrutiny. The Assessing Officer later on issued impugned notice dated 02.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the said Assessment Year 2011-12. He supplied to the petitioner the reasons recorded for issuing such notice, which read as under: ” "In this case, on verification of records, it is found that the Assessee is a Private Ltd. Company engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. On the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders at Annexure-A whereby the petitioner is held to be disqualified to continue as member of Tapodi Gram Panchayat on the ground that the petitioner has more than two children. 2. It appears that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 2.3.2013 by respondent No.4 “ Taluka Development Officer stating that the petitioner has six children and his last child named Darbar Lakhubha was born on 20.7.2009 on account of which he incurred disqualification under section 32 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ( the Act ?) to continue as member of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice mainly stating that out of six children, 5 children were born out of the wedlock with his first wife named Maniben who died on 30.3.2005 which was prior to the Amending Act, 2005 came into force and, thereafter, only one child was born o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3753
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Rajeshbhai Pitambarbhai Parmar and other original accused have filed this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter be referred to as the Code) challenging the order dated 30th August, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, by which the learned Judge has altered the charge. The learned Judge by the said order added the charge against all the accused under Section 176 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under :-2.1 It is the case of the applicants that the applicants - accused was charged in connection to the Criminal Case registered at Mehelav Police Station bearing C.R. No. I 7/99 for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 201 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The said charge was filed somewhere on 10th May, 2000.3. After aforesaid charge was framed according to the prosecution, six wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals they are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.0. All these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.10.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No.12049 of 2001 and other allied matters, by which, the learned Single Judge has negatived the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 21.5.1994 providing for absorption of teaching and non teaching staff by minority institutions declared surplus from other minority institutions and also held that Government Resolution of 1996 providing for addition of clause 64.3 in the Grant in Aid Code would be applicable to aided minority institutions by observing and holding that as the minority institutions are getting grant in aid from the Government they are bound by the same and bound to absorb teaching and non teaching staff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. Draft amendment is granted. The petitioner, by way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court with following prayers. (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and / or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 04.03.2015 issued by the present respondent no.2 at Annexure-L to this petition. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the Summons dated 08102012 issued by the present respondent no.2 Authority under the Act, 1952 by holding and declaring that the proceeding initiated under Section 7B of the Act, 1952 against the petitioner Company is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings in c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
CAV Judgment: 1. Since the issues raised in the above captioned matters are interrelated those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted of the offence under Sections 213, 214, 217 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the strength of a First Information Report registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat vide I-CR No.37/2013. 3. Case of the prosecution:- 3.1 A person, by name Asaram Bapu claims to be a Saint. His son, namely, Narayansai also claims to be a Saint. The father and son have many Ashrams all over the State and one of those is situated at Ahmedabad. On 11th December, 2013 Shri J. K. Zala, Asst. Commissioner of Police, 'D' Dvn., Surat City lodged a First Information Report referred to above making a reference in the same of one other offence registered on 6/10/2013 at the Jahangirpura Police Station vide C.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
CAV Judgment: 1. Since the issues raised in the above captioned matters are interrelated those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted of the offence under Sections 213, 214, 217 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the strength of a First Information Report registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat vide I-CR No.37/2013. 3. Case of the prosecution:- 3.1 A person, by name Asaram Bapu claims to be a Saint. His son, namely, Narayansai also claims to be a Saint. The father and son have many Ashrams all over the State and one of those is situated at Ahmedabad. On 11th December, 2013 Shri J. K. Zala, Asst. Commissioner of Police, 'D' Dvn., Surat City lodged a First Information Report referred to above making a reference in the same of one other offence registered on 6/10/2013 at the Jahangirpura Police Station vide C.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the 'Code') filed below Exh.106 in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 by the petitioners - original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') for amendment of their plaint. 2. With a view to properly understand and appreciate controversy involved in this petition, case set-up by the parties, out of which this petition has arisen and on which, learned Senior Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, needs to be briefly noted. The facts are as under:- 2.1. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur against the respondent - defendant in the month of April, 2008 for specific performance of Agreement to Sale dated 09.04.2007 executed by the respondent - de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)GLR67
S.K. Keshote, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Gujarat and District Education Officer, Ahmedabad, challenges the order dated 22-11-1991 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No.165/91 wherein the application was partly allowed and the respondent-teacher was declared to be entitled to opt for the pension scheme with certain conditions and further allowed him to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1-6-1985 and the Department has been directed to sanction his voluntary retirement application, if he applied for the same. Prayer has also been made for quashing and setting aside of the order aforesaid of the Tribunal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order impugned in this special civil application raised the following contentions:(a) Whether Secondary Education Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass any Order against and/or direct the petitioners nam...
Tag this Judgment!