Court : Gujarat
Common Cav Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. All these Special Civil Applications were heard analogously as in all these matters, the questions that had arisen for consideration were whether the provisions contained in section 2 (1)(o) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act or SARFAESI Act] and clause 2.1 of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India known as Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning “ pertaining to Advances are ultra vires the Constitution of India, and, consequently, the actions taken by various Banks concerned under the Securitisation Act are illegal and without authority of law. 2. We, however, propose to treat the Special Civil Application No. 14908 of 2012 as the lead matter. 3. The case made out by the petitioners in SCA No. 14908 of 2012 may be summed up thus: [a]. The petitioners are the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties for final disposal of the petition. 2. Petitioner has challenged a notice dated 26th March 2013 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {"the Act" for short}. 3. Brief facts are as under : The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. For the Assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed its return of income on 31st March 2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1.77 Crores [rounded off]. In such return, the petitioner had claimed set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 4.26 Crores [rounded off] pertaining to the period between A.Y 1984-85 to A.Y 2007-08 against the petitioner's income from long term capital gains arising during the year under consideration. Such return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. He framed assessment on 29th December 2010 assessing the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 13.52 Crores [rounded o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this reference, the Tribunal as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.08.1996 in Civil Appeal No.10652 of 1996, arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12022 of 1991 moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot has directed the Tribunal to raise and refer the following question said to be questions of law to the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for its esteemed opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. (2) Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'Notification No.SRO/992 dated 22.12.1950 of the old Act, 1922 was not withdrawn and, therefore, it provided a good basis to the Co-operative Society to seek exemption of its income from business." 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the assessee is a cooperative society and was assessed by the Income-tax Officer in the status of A.O.P. The as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.J. Thaker, J. 1. The Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.1892/Ahd/2001. 2. The Tax Appeal No.677 of 2001 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.88/Ahd/2001. 3. The facts of both the appeals are identical Therefore, both these appeals are taken up for hearing and decided together as common questions of law are raised. The respondent though served, has chosen not to appear. 4. As the question of law as well as the facts of both these appeals are same, we discuss facts as emerging in Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006. The assessee filed its return on 31.07.1998, declaring total income of Rs.54,15,971/- for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The assessments were taken under scrutiny and the Assessment Officer vide its order, determined the total income of ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3154; (2009)3GLR2148
ORDERD.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioners have exclusively invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to pray for quashing the complaint which is registered as FIR I-C.R. No. 92 of 2008 at Jaipur City (South) Mahila Thana, Rajasthan. The complaint is made for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the complainant's husband and his parents and it alleges series of events occurring at several places in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.2. Since the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court is required to be addressed first, before assuming jurisdiction and issuing process, the facts relevant for that purpose may be culled out and summarized. According to the petition, petitioner No. 1, the husband, was selected for Indian Administrative Services (IAS) of Gujarat Cadre in the year 2004 and respondent No. 1-wife, the original complainant, was selected for IAS of Jammu & Kashmir Cadre in the year 2005. They married at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Ranjit Singh, J.1. All efforts made at reconciliation between this well educated and well placed estranged couple having failed, we explored the possibility of seeing an amicable settlement and permanent parting between them. We regret to note that we even could not succeed in these efforts. The case having been heard at length was put up for rehearing when a statement was made on behalf of the respondent husband that he was willing to pay Rs. 10 lacs to the appellant-wife and his child, which was turned down by her. At some stage of these proceedings, the appellant wife seemed willing to end this relationship in case some proper arrangements were made for the child.2. We recollect that her demand was in the range of the present offer, which the respondent-husband had then expressed his inability to meet. This well educated couple, who are well placed in their respective fields, has continued to litigate this matrimonial dispute almost soon after their marriage. We have not been able t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1735
M.S. Shah, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28-4-2006 by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant herein (challenging the order of penalty in a departmental proceedings) as not maintainable on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction of this Court.3. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') is an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the respondent-company with its Head Office at Mumbai and was serving at the relevant time at Mumbai where the alleged misconduct took place. When the charge-sheet dated 1-12-2003 was issued by respondent No. 2 (the disciplinary authority at Mumbai), the petitioner was rendering his services at Mumbai. After the departmental inquiry was concluded by the Inquiry Officer, but before the disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty, the petitioner came to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj257
M.U. Shah, J. 1. This second appeal has come to us by a reference made by Mr. Justice B. G. Thakore on February 18, 1969. It raises an important question concerning the age of compulsory retirement of a pre-1938 April ministerial Central Government servant.2. Appellant Mulchand Dasumal Pardasani was appointed as a clerk in the Sindh Salt Department on June 10, 1930. He was transferred to Bombay Central Excise Department with effect from 15th August 1947 and was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in about October 1948. At that time, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 280/- plus Rs. 50/- dearness allowance per month in the sale of Rs. 130-5-160-8-200 130-5-160-8-200 E.B.-8-280-10-300. He continued to be in that scale of the date of the issuance of establishment order No. 286 of 1963 dated December 18, 1963 by the Collector, Central Excise, Baroda. The said order was served on him on December 28, 1963, and he proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement on March 14, 1964, the date on which he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1267
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Heard learned counsel Shri. Raval for the petitioner. Rule. Shri. Makwana, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondents.2. The petitioner, son of a deceased Government employee died in harness, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18/4/2007 passed by the respondent denying him compassionate appointment on irrelevant and extraneous considerations and has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus or any other order directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate appointment.3. This matter was heard at length on earlier occasion and it was slated for dictation of judgment. In the meantime learned AGP Mr. Makwana was to place on record the updated compilation of Government instructions/resolutions in respect of compassionate appointment. Today Mr. Makwana has completed his exercise of re-constituting the bunch.4. Facts in brief required to be set out in orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)1GLR427
S.D. Shah, J.1. This group of petitions is filed by various petitioners from number of districts for issuance of direction to the respective Panchayats to operate the select list for the post of Gram Sevak (Multipurpose) or Gram Sevak (Training & Visit), as the case may be, and to appoint them on such post pursuant to their selection and inclusion of their names in the select list duly prepared. They have also prayed for writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the resolution or circular issued by the State Government whereby it has directed the concerned Panchayat to hold fresh selection for the post of Gram Sevak (Multipurpose)/Gram Sevak (Training & Visit) and not to make any appointment to said posts based on existing select list. xxx xxx xxx4. Petition-wise position of respective Panchayat, number of vacancies, notification thereof, preparation of select list and actual appointment of candidates is stated hereunder in a tabular form:...
Tag this Judgment!