Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)208CTR(Guj)439
1. The following question is proposed for admission of this appeal:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Gujarat Maritime Board fulfills the conditions as envisaged in Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which are necessary for its registration under Section 12A of the said Act2. The short controversy involved in this appeal is whether the Gujarat Maritime Board is a charitable trust/institution or not, for the purpose of Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal as under:4. We have considered the rival submissions with reference to each and every ground given by the Commissioner of Income-tax for refusing the registration of the assessee under Section 12A of the Act. Our finding in this regard is as under:(i) The first ground given by the Commissioner of Income-tax for refusing the registration of the assessee is that the assessee cannot be considered to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1306
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the appellant, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Mehsana by resorting to Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. Since common points of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, with the consent of parties, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. By filing these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition References No. 3134 of 2003 to No. 3139 of 2003. The learned Judge of the Reference Court treated L.A.R. No. 3138/03 as the main case and common evidence is lead in the aforesaid References. 3. On behalf of the ONGC, certain agricultural lands of the claimants were temporarily acquired for its project. Somewhere in 1993, the General Manager of ONGC, Mehsana Project sent a proposal to the Government for acquisition of the lands in question for a temporary period under Section 35 of the Land Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR527
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Textiles Labour Association and learned advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk appearing on behalf of the respondent - workman.2. The petitioner - Textiles Labour Association has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.1048 of 1985 dated 31st August 1996. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed the reference granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 70% back wages of interim period. This Court, while issuing rule, has granted interim relief against the implementation of the award subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated 18th March 1997. From the record of the petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner by one Mahendrakumar A. Maniar, office bearer of petitioner Association, to bring on record the certain events and facts which have occurred during the pendency of petition. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj1; (2007)2GLR1297
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and with the consent of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is further heard today. 2. The only question, which arise for consideration of this Court is whether the action of the Mamlatdar denying entry of a registered document for lis pendens is legal and valid or not3. The short facts of the case are that as per the petitioners, they have filed Special Civil Suit No. 209/05 in the Court of learned Civil Judge(SD), Ahmedabad, for the specific performance of the contract and as per the petitioners, the said suit is pending and therefore, the notice of lis pendens was got registered by the petitioners as per the document(Annexure-B), which has been registered vide registration No. 5302 dated 20th June, 2006, of the Joint Sub-Registrar, SRO, Ahmedabad-2, Vadaj. After the document was registered, the petitioners submitted application to the Mamlatdar, Dascroi for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007(34)PTC1(Guj)
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioners, manufacturers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations being aggrieved of impugned order dated 29.06.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad - respondent No. 2 herein are before this Court.Impugned order dated 29.06.2005 is an order which is not only devoid of any reasons but is also drawn in a very sketchy manner. Though the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'the IPAB' for short) has been observing against such orders, time and again, respondent No. 2 though in know of such observations of IPAB, refused to take cognizance thereof. In the Matter of Asian Paints Ltd. v. Registrar Of Trade Marks and Anr. reported in 2005 (30) PTC 444 (IPAB), the board observed as under:.The impugned order has been drawn up in a very sketchy manner. Quasi judicial orders affecting the vital interests of the society should be put down in a more serious manner.2. This very board in yet another matter of Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1230
Akil Kureshi, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged a notice dated 25-1-2006 issued by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002'). The petitioners have also challenged a communication dated 15-5-2006 by which the respondent-Company disposed of the objections of the petitioners to the notice dated 25-1-2006 under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002.2. Short facts leading to the present petition are as follows:2.1 The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the provision of the Companies Act. The petitioner No. 2 is a whole time Director of petitioner No. 1-Company. The respondent is also a Company registered under the Companies Act.2.2 The respondent-Company is a Securitisation and Reconstruction Company registered with Reserve Bank of India under Section 3 of the Act of 2002.2.3 It is not in dispute that the respondent-Company acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008(223)ELT565(Guj); (2007)2GLR1744
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Notification No. 19 (RE-2006)/2004-2009 dated 4-7-2006 whereby retrospective effect is given to Notification dated 27-6-2006 and Notification dated 3-7-2006 so as to be operative with effect from 22-6-2006. The following prayers are made:(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and/ or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification No. 19 (RE-2006) 2004-2009 dated 4-7-2006 passed by respondent No. 2 giving retrospective effect to the Notification No. 15 (RE-2006) 2004-2009 dated 27-6-2006, and No. 17 (RE-2006) 2004-2009 dated 3-7-2006 w.e.f. 22-6-2006, holding that the said Notifications are illegal, unjust, bad in law, against the provisions of settled principles of law, discriminative, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, contrary to principles of natural justice, and also contrary to the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897, as the said Notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj5; (2007)1GLR859(GJ)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition, though styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is in effect a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein is the original applicant of application exhibit 29 made in HMP No. 341 of 2005 while the respondent herein is the original opponent in the application. Hereinafter the parties shall be referred to as per their respective description in the application for the sake of convenience.2. The opponent during pendency of HMP No. 341 of 2005 moved an application for maintenance pendente lite under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (The Marriage Act). The applicant herein has already submitted his reply and his objections to the said application. The present application came to be moved by the petitioner-applicant under the provisions of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for a direction to the opponent to produce the following five doc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008ACJ61; (2007)1GLR567
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. The original claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Surat in M.A.C.P. No. 426/1980. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- together with running interest at the rate of 6% p a from the date of the application till realization and proportionate costs. The Tribunal has, however, held that in the instant case respondent No. 3 i.e., Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. was not liable to pay compensation to the appellant but respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely driver and owner of the offending vehicle were saddled with the liability to satisfy the award. The judgment and award are dated 28/2/1983. 2. The appellant, at the relevant time, was working with C K Pithawala, contractor of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers. He received monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. On 16/6/1980 he was required to go to Surat. However, the condition of the car of the company in which he was supposed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Guj)285
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the following questions of law arising out of its order dated 22.12.1995 in WTA No. 2589/Ahd/1991 in respect of assessment year 1986-87.(1) Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the value of the factory building and research building which were under construction and not in actual use for the purpose of business as contemplated under the provisions of Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983?(2) Whether, by allowing the claim of the assessee, the appellate Tribunal has not caused violation to the plain and simple language used in Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983?2. The facts stated are that the factory and research buildings were under the process of construction during the year under consideration. The assessee claimed exemption from wealth tax on the buildings under const...
Tag this Judgment!