Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR213
M.R. Shah, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the provisions of Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods for the Local Areas Act, 2001 (Entry Tax Act) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] as ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the notices issued by the respondents No. 3 and 4 dated 24th March 2004, 1st April 2004 and 27th May 2004 at Annexure 'B' to the petition by which the petitioner is called upon to produce the certificate with regard to payment of entry tax.2. The Statement and Objects of the Act, the Preamble, and the relevant provisions of the Act are as under;Statement of Objects and Reasons (Bill No. 36 of 2001):This Bill seeks to introduce the entry tax on the specified goods with a view to giving effect to the proposal contained in the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister in the Legislative Asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj69; (2007)1GLR562
R.S. Garg, J.1. The parties are heard.2. The appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law:1. In view of the fact that there is no mortgage deed, whether the learned Judge has erred in holding that the suit land was orally mortgaged to the defendants?2) In view of the fact that the defendants have not produced sale deed alleged to have been executed on 24-1-1963 and 7-10-66, whether the learned Judge has erred in holding that the defendants had purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and Bhavsingh Hurji?3) In view of the fact that the defendants have not produced sale deed in order to prove their ownership over the suit land and that the defendants have not given any explanation for producing the sale deed, whether the learned Judge has erred in holding that the defendants are the owners of the suit land and the suit is time barred?3. The appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and possession of certain land on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(Guj)729
Y.R. Meena, Act.C.J.1. Following questions are referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the lower authorities disallowing the bad debts in case of (1) M/s. Neo Mar Ltd. Of Rs. 81,529/- and (2) M/s. Modern Woolen Mills Ltd. Of Rs. 21,463/- inspite of the fact that under provisions of Section 36 of the I.T. Act, 1961 there is no requirement for determining the basis for which the payment have not been made by the debtors to the assessee?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1005105/- being the sale consideration of spare parts supplied to party in Poland could not be considered as export turnover within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the I.T. Act, 1961?The main issue raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in the first question is that 'once the assessee debited the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR879; (2007)IIILLJ263Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This Appeal is filed by Employees State Insurance Corporation under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the E.S.I. Act).2. An appeal under Section 82 of the E.S.I. Act would be maintainable only when there is a substantial question of law. However, looking to the scheme of the Act, it is not necessary that substantial question of law is required to be framed by the Judge like second appeal under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code.3. Section 82 of the E.S.I. Act reads as under:82. Appeal.(1) Save as expressly provided in this Section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court.(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involved a substantial question of law.(3) The period of Limitation for an appeal under this Section shall be sixty days.(4) The provisions of Sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall apply to appeals un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)3GLR2488
Anant S. Dave, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners, who were employees of the Government Engineering Colleges of State of Gujarat. At the relevant point of time, all the petitioners were in service and particulars regarding service of the petitioners are provided as per the chart annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are Assistant Professor, while petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 are Professors and petitioner No. 4 is the Principal. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:(a) to direct the respondents to give benefit of the increasede age of superannuation of 62 years to the petitioners - teachers of Engineering Colleges w.e.f. 31.7.1998 as directed by the Central Government and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) vide communications dated 31.7.1998, 2.9.1998 and 9.10.1998 as per Annexure-B colly and to further direct the respondents to continue th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1297; (2007)2GLR1684
C.K. Buch, J.1. The present appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Special Judge, Amreli in a prosecution instituted for the offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Judge, vide order of conviction and sentence dated 31st January, 1991, on conclusion of the trial of Essential Commodities Act Case No. 10 of 1985, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced the accused to suffer three months. Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.2. The impugned order is assailed on various grounds mentioned in para 3 of the memo of appeal and Mr. H.N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing with learned Senior counsel Mr. P.M. Thakkar has taken me through these grounds of challenge on behalf of the appellant accused and so also the judgment.2.1 It is argued that the finding of the lower court is er...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)IIILLJ195Guj
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.2. The question which arises for the consideration of this Court in the present petition is as to whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has the jurisdiction under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Collector or his delegatee under Section 39A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code or not.3. I have heard Mr. Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP for the State Authorities.4. It appears that the proceedings were initiated by the Mine Supervisor, Geological Department against the petitioner under Section 39A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). As per Section 39A of the Code, the powers are with the Collector, however, as per the communication dated 9.12.2006 received by the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1656
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to indirectly challenge and put to naught the order dated 6-2-1991 of Dy. Conservator of Forest and the judgment and order dated 20th January, 1992 of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991 whereby truck No. GTO 2668 was ordered to be confiscated and the appeal therefrom was dismissed. Petitioner was not a party to the first confiscation proceedings.2. On 12-6-1985, Range Forest Officer had caught the said truck for its involvement in illegally carrying the wood stolen from forest area. After seizure of the truck, the registered owner, respondent No. 4 herein, had approached this Court and obtained interim relief on 26-7-1985 of releasing the truck on executing a bond and furnishing security. Thereafter, the truck is stated to have been sold to the present petitioner on 15-9-1989 and transferred in his name on 16-1-1990. On the other hand, the Dy. Conservator of Forest ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR581
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. The present group of petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Act, 1962, ('the Act' for short) whereby the right of user in the lands belonging to the petitioners has been acquired by the Competent Authority under the Act for the purpose of laying pipelines for transportation of natural gas by the respondent No. 3, i.e. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited.2. As identical issues of facts and law are involved in these petitions, this Court proposes to dispose them of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, this Court also proposes to refer to the facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006.3. By filing Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:A. This Honoura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj150
1. This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 6-10-2005 in First Appeal No. 413 of 2000 by which this Court allowed the appeal of the State Government and the Executive Engineer and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1999 of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No. 253 of 1992 on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was already excluded by the provisions of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Ordinance, 1991.2. The present petitioner is partnership firm of Engineers, Contractors and Consultants. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Bharuch had invited tenders for the work of constructing an office-cum-laboratory building for Fishery Department at Bharuch and the tender submitted by the petitioner herein was accepted. As per the agreement between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, the project of construction for Rs. 15,61,107/- was entrusted to the petitioner. ...
Tag this Judgment!