Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-18-2005
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-29-2005
Reported in : [2006]71SCL469(Guj)
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In this group of petitions, the respective petitioners, registered as stock brokers with SEBI being members of Regional Stock Exchanges and also registered as sub brokers with SEBI of subsidiaries of their parent Regional exchanges, who are registered as sub brokers with SEBI as members of Bombay Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSE') and National Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the 'NSE') have challenged the legality and validity of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) (Amendment) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations 2003'); circular being No. SEBI/MIRSD/DSP-1/CIR-31/2004 dated 26-8-2004 and the circular dated 12-5-2005 making the same applicable to the members of the recognized Stock Exchanges operating through the subsidiaries of such recognized Stock Exchanges. By the Regulation 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-13-2005
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1029
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. As the subject matter of the petition as well as Misc. Civil Application [ 'MCA' for short] is the same, they were heard together by us and now they are being disposed of by this common CAV judgment.2. The petition is filed by Smt. Kapilaben Ashokbhai Patel, who is also opponent No. 4 in the MCA, but in this judgment she is referred to as 'the petitioner'. Applicant of the MCA is respondent No. 4 in the petition. Accordingly he is referred to as respondent No. 4 in this judgment. Rest of the parties are referred to in accordance with their position in the petition.2.1. The petition is filed for claiming relief to the effect that appropriate direction be given to respondent No. 1 to issue notification appointing Appellate Officer/Authority for the development area of Gandhinagar township in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Gujarat Regulation of Unauthorized Development Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. By way of interim relief, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-24-2005
Reported in : [2006]286ITR129(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the GIT :Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the new business carried out can be held to be the same as that of the earlier years, and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of carry forward and set off of accumulated losses ?2. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 30th June, 1982. The assessee, a limited company, claimed set off and carried forward of certain business losses which came to be disallowed by the AO.3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the same. Hence, the matter was carried in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dt. 9th Jan., 1992, has allowed the assessee's appeal.4. The assessee-company was manufacturing cloth from yarn and then selling the same in the market. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-05-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ859; (2006)1GLR393
H.N. Devani, J.1. Mr. K.D. Gandhi, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the cause title of the petition. Permission is granted. Amendment to be carried out immediately.2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/detenu-Mukesh Himatlal Sheth, residing at Kantilal House, 14, Mama Parmanand Marg, Mumbai, challenges the order of detention dated 18th October, 2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Patan, ordering the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) and 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (the Act) on the said authority's subjective satisfaction that such detention was necessary with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. (The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention to the fact that there is an error in quoting the provisions of the Act in the order. The c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-20-2005
Reported in : (2006)200CTR(Guj)649; [2006]284ITR396(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SB has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in relying upon Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment with effect from 1-4-1989 thereby cancelling the order of C.I.T. Under Section 2632. The assessment year is 1985-86. The assessee's accounting period is 1-7-1983 to 30-6-1984 and the assessee was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 4-1-1988.3. On 31-12-1984, the assessee company amalgamated with M/s Nestler Boilers Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the accounts of the assessee company were made up for a period of six months from 1-7-1984 to 31-12-1984 showing net profit of Rs. 2,86,074/-. The assessee company accordingly filed the return of income for assessment year 1986-87. Assessment came to be framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-11-2005
Reported in : 2004(176)ELT64(Guj); (2006)1GLR436
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. While dealing with the diverse contentions raised by the parties in the petition, the consequential issues which arose for consideration of this Court are (i) whether a government monopolistic company established with the object of accelerating the growth of national economy should concentrate on profit motive alone in the course of discharge of its functions, and (ii) whether such a company has the authority to deviate from the directions issued by the Central Government in policy matters and act arbitrarily and unreasonably for the sole purpose of making super profit.2. The petitioner Essar Steel Limited has prayed for quashing and setting aside notice dated 1.5. 2001 whereby the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have sought disconnection of supply of gas for non-payment of transportation charges; to restrain the respondents, their officers, servants from acting in any manner contrary to the Government pricing orders dated 31.12.1991, 18.9.1997 and 30.9.1997; to direct the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-11-2005
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1056
K.A. Puj, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP and Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Since the complaint is of 1991, the matter is heard finally.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 31.3.2003 at Annexure-A and the order dated 22.4.2004 at Annexure-B passed by the learned JMFC, Veraval and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, respectively and also praying for deletion of the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 379 of the I.P.C. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No. 1301/1991 pending before the learned JMFC Veraval. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Officer from the Gujarat Electricity Board (G.E.B.) respondent No. 2 herein had visited the factory premises of the petitioner and alleged the theft of the ener...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-16-2005
Reported in : (2006)1GLR695
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Ms. Mita Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of petitioner-State of Gujarat.2. This matter came up for admission hearing before Court on 11-6-2001 on which date, Rule was issued making by it returnable on 3-7-2001, and ad interim relief, in terms of Para 5(C) was granted till then. Thereafter, on 28-8-2001, interim relief was extended upto 6-9-2001. From perusal of original record, it appears that ad interim relief has not been extended thereafter. Not only that, no such request was made on behalf of the State for extension of ad interim relief. From 7th September, 2001, the impugned award passed by the labour Court, Surendranagar, was required to be implemented by the State of Gujarat, because thereafter, no interim relief was continued and it came to an end on 6th September, 2001. This is the sorry state of affairs. This petition was admitted since the Government Pleader pointed out judgment dated 1-1-2001 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-09-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ726
Jayant Patel, J.1. Life is dear to everybody and death is painful to one and all. Should sentiments prevail or discipline for the administration of any institution Can sentiments be allowed to be enforced over rule of law Can the action or inaction or propriety of action or inaction to discharge legal obligation be said as an aid or instigation or abetment to commit suicide The aforesaid are the aspects which directly or indirectly arise for the consideration of this Court in the present group of petitions.2. The short facts of the case are as under:(i) There is no dispute on the following aspects:a. Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC for short) is a statutory body governed by the provisions of LIC Act and its employees are governed by the Regulations framed by LIC in exercise of the statutory power under LIC Act.b. The deceased Dineshbhai Ganpatbhai Parmar was an employee of LIC holding of the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer.c. The petitioners of...
Tag this Judgment!