Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-25-1996
Reported in : [1996]220ITR393(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The CIT, Rajkot has moved this Court by filing these three applications under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, (thereinafter referred to 'as the Act') as application under s. 256(1) of the Act preferred by the applicant before the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and to refer it to this Court along with the question of law based on facts, came to be rejected. The Tribunal was requested to refer the following question : 'Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment was not validly reopened ?' 2. Assessee at the relevant time was a Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation and was drawing incentive bonus. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied his mind to the question of claim of deduction from incentive bonus and thereafter he has come to the conclusion that deduction is permissible, allowed the same and assessed accordingly. It is also clear from the record that for asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 such claim being rejec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-16-1996
Reported in : (1997)1GLR748
M.R. Calla, J.1. The respondent was working as Valveman with the Gujarat Housing Board. He preferred an application under Section 33-C(2) claiming wages for the weekly off and that application was allowed by an order dated 8-11-1982 for the period upto 31-5-1980. The respondent claimed that he had worked on the weekly holidays even thereafter and continued to work as such even on weekly holidays till he retired on 31-1-1987 and he preferred yet another application under Section 33-C(2) on 27-5-1987 claiming wages for weekly off for the period after 31-5-1980 till the date of his retirement, i.e., 31-1-1987. This application under Section 33-C(2) for the period till 31-1-1987 has been allowed by the Labour Court, Rajkot vide his order dated 14-8-1995 passed in Recovery Application No. 235 of 1987.2. This order dated 14-8-1985 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot has been challenged by the Gujarat Housing Board through this Special Civil Application. The petitioner came with the case that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-18-1996
Reported in : (1996)3GLR845
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Dahyabhai Khushabhai Ahir and five others, by this appeal has brought under challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 13-12-1993 rendered in Special Atrocities Case No. 9 of 1993 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch, wherein on their coming to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 343, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C. read with offences punishable under Sections 3(l)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985; and under Sec 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 were at the end of the trial ordered to be convicted for the same and sentenced to R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for two years and various other periods of R.I. and fine for other offences, as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order.2. To briefly narrate the prosecution case, the incident in question wherein Dahyabhai Laxmanbhai was done to death at the hands of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-31-1996
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ334Guj
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, New Commercial Mills Company Ltd. Ahmedabad challenges by this Sp. Civil Application the order of the respondent No. 2., Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat State, at Ahmedabad dated March 8, 1982, Annexure 'A' made under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1952') ordered therein to recover by way of penalty the damages to the extent of 100% or delayed payment of contribution to the fund. The damages ordered to be recovered is to the tune of Rs. 9,51,650/-. The delayed payment has been made by the petitioner of the provident fund contribution including family pension fund contribution for the months of May, June, July and August 1980 which is the subject matter of the consideration by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-03-1996
Reported in : (1998)1GLR581
N.J. Pandya, J. 1. On earlier occasion when the matter was heard, it was pointed out that the respondent-Company is under liquidation. This prompted the appellant to request for joining for Official Liquidator as a party. This request was granted on 18-3-1996. In response to the notice issued to the Official Liquidator, we have got an endorsement to the effect that the Company is not under liquidation. Obviously, therefore, there is no question of making him a party. Hence, the name of the Official Liquidator as a party-respondent is deleted. 2. So far as the question involved in the appeal is concerned, by now, it is covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v. E.S.I Corpn., AIR 1978 SC 1478. 3. The appellant is the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and in course of his inquiry in connection with the working of the respondent-Mill, it was noticed that there was one Deepak Yarn Trading Company which was doing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-03-1996
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1204; (1998)IIILLJ278Guj
M.R. Calla, J.1. These 64 Special Civil Applications are based on identical facts and raise common questions of law and hence the same are decided by this common judgment and order.2.The learned Counsel Dr. Sinha, Mr. Koshti, Mr. Patel and Mr. Raval have submitted that for the purpose of pleadings they would refer to the-pleadings and the documents contained in Special Civil Application Nos. 179 of 1995,249 of 1995 and 7744 of 1991 and, therefore, the references, which are made hereinafter to the pleadings, documents, etc., are taken from the Special Civil Application Nos. 179 of 1995, 249 of 1995 and 7744 of 1991.3. There are 2 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 179 of 1995, 46 petitioners is Special Civil Application No. 249 of 1995, 13 petitioners in Special Civil Application No.737 of 1995, 3 petitioners is Special Civil Application No. 8216 of 1995 and initially there were 59 petitioners in Special Civil Application No.4797 of 1990, but later on 58 separate one page peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-12-1996
Reported in : (1997)3GLR1825
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Challenge is made by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application to the order of the District Judge, Mehsana dated 30th January, 1982 under which execution application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The petitioner herein is a trust, which has its property at Patan (inclusive of temple). Previously one Sadhu Saligram was the sole trustee and Mahant of the trust. He submitted an application in the year 1961 for registration of the trust and ultimately the trust was registered as a public trust under the order of the Chanty Commissioner dated 7-6-1961. Shri Saligram expired on 1-8-1972. After his death the dispute over the trust property started between Vrajlal and his relative and friends on one side and certain persons of the locality who were taking interest in the trust property on the other side. Complaints were filed against each other. Vrajlal, i.e., the respondent No. 1 herein filed a Civil Suit in the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-05-1996
Reported in : (1996)3GLR783
C.K. Thakker, J. (Cav.)1. All these petitions have been placed before a Larger Bench in view of an order of Reference made by our learned brother N.N. Mathur, J. on March 23, 1995. When the matters were placed for hearing before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the orders passed by different Division Benches were inconsistent and contradictory. There was also discrepancy and disagreement between Full Bench decisions. The learned single Judge felt that there was some conflict between the Full Bench Judgment, 'in order to reconcile between two Full Bench Judgments and to have a proper ratio decided to cover a field and also keeping in view of public importance of the issue', it was desirable to refer the matters to a Larger Bench. The Full Bench decisions are Gorva Vibhag Cooperative Housing Societies Association v. State of Gujarat 1992( 1) GLR 654 (First Full Bench) and H.P. Dave v. Sub-Registrar, Rajkot 1994(2) GLR 1222 (Second Full Bench). The question is what is reaso...
Tag this Judgment!