Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-24-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report registered at the Umra Police Station, Surat, vide C.R.No.I-20 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief may be summarized as under : The applicant no.1 Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and others viz., Harivadan Shantilal, Laljibhai Arjanbhai, Shardaben Laljibhai, Haresh Laljibhai, Jayantibhai Ranchhodbhai and Chhaganbhai Shantilal executed an agreement for Sale/Contract dated 7th July 2003 in favour of Ravjibhai Premjibhai, Veljibhai Mohanbhai, Nanubhai Premjibhai and Devrajbhai Mohanbhai for the land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 9 paiki (new Revenue Survey No.6, T.P. Scheme No.1 (Vesu), F.P. No.17, admeasuring 7268 sq.mtrs. and 6562 sq.mtrs.) against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-24-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report registered at the Umra Police Station, Surat, vide C.R.No.I-20 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief may be summarized as under : The applicant no.1 Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and others viz., Harivadan Shantilal, Laljibhai Arjanbhai, Shardaben Laljibhai, Haresh Laljibhai, Jayantibhai Ranchhodbhai and Chhaganbhai Shantilal executed an agreement for Sale/Contract dated 7th July 2003 in favour of Ravjibhai Premjibhai, Veljibhai Mohanbhai, Nanubhai Premjibhai and Devrajbhai Mohanbhai for the land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 9 paiki (new Revenue Survey No.6, T.P. Scheme No.1 (Vesu), F.P. No.17, admeasuring 7268 sq.mtrs. and 6562 sq.mtrs.) against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-05-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals assailing the following ordersTax Appeal No.Date of Tribunal's orderITA No.Assessment Year419/200711/08/06129/Ahd/20021990-91 to 26.11.19991393/200730.11.2005157/Ahd/20031991-92 to 22.11.20001394/200730.11.2005158/Ahd/20031991-92 to 22.11.20001431/200702/12/05339/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001432/200702/12/05338/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001433/200702/12/05337/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001434/200702/12/05336/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001435/200702/12/0572/Ahd/20031990-91 to 1999-2000440/200829.06.2007191/Ahd/200401.04.1990 to 25.07.20001351/200701/12/05228/Ahd/20031990-91 to 12.01.20011.1 These appeals were admitted by this Court for consideration of the following substantial question of law: TAX APPEAL NO. 1351 OF 2007 "Whether, on the facts and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-02-2014
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
Decided on : Nov-27-2014
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
Decided on : Oct-17-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order of respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Income Tax-I at Annexure-L rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short)on the ground that the petitioner had not made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the revision application; and has also prayed to quash the order levying penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act at Annexure A, dated 12.3.2010, and has sought further direction against respondent No.1 to refund the penalty amount of Rs.1,13,32,499.00 with interest. 2. As per the facts stated in the petition, the petitioner filed his return of income declaring loss of Rs.4,63,776.00 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-17-2014
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
Decided on : Oct-14-2014
1. Rule. Mr.Nikunt K.Raval, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Mehul S.Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally. 2. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 30.11.2013, passed by the learned 10th Additional District Judge (adhoc), Rajkot ("the Appellate Court", below the applications at Exs.5 and 27, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2011, whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot ("the Trial Court") below the applications at Exs.5 and 27, in Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 1999, has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as presented in the petition, are that l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-14-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. J. T. Trivedi for the appellant and learned senior counsel Mr. S. R. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojia for all the respondents. 2. Pursuant to order dated 29.11.2013, parties have produced compilation of relevant papers and made submissions for final disposal of the appeal. 3. The appellant is original plaintiff; whereas respondents are original defendants before the Civil Court at Valsad, camp @ Vapi in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2011. In such suit, plaintiff has prayed for specific performance to agreement to sell dated 10.01.1981 and possession receipt dated 25.12.1982 with alternative relief of declaration that because of suit property is in possession of the plaintiff since the year 1981 - 1982 it amounts to an adverse possession for more than 30 years with a permanent injunction as restraining the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-23-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged a Notification dated 4th February, 2012 at Annexure "J" to the petition, as being unconstitutional. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to grant appointments to the petitioners on priority basis to the post of Livestock Inspectors. 2. The brief facts are as under:- 2.1 The State Government, in order to meet with the requirement of trained Livestock Inspectors at distant and far away places, which task would not be possible to be performed only with the aid of the veterinary doctors, has created the cadre of Livestock Inspectors in the Department of Animal Husbandry. These Livestock Inspectors, as is apparent from the Government of Gujarat's Notification dated 27th February, 2001, were allowed to attend to the livestocks under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, as long as they are in the Government service. 2.2 In exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Consti...
Tag this Judgment!