Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-12-2001
Reported in : [2002]256ITR230(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law, arising out of the order dated March 30, 1984, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' in I. T. A. No. 829/Ahd of 1983, has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the basis of material placed before the Tribunal, the amount of legal fees of Rs. 80,850 was expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business and therefore allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard the learned advocate, Shri J. P. Shah, appearing for the assessee, and the learned advocate, Shri Akil Qureshi, appearing for the Revenue.3. The circumstances in which the question referred to hereinabove has arisen, in a nutshell, are as under :The assessee, Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-12-2001
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(Guj)458
A.R. Dave, J.At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law, arising out of the order dated 30-3-1984, passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B in ITA No. 829/Ahd/1983, has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the basis of material placed before the Tribunal, the amount of legal fees of Rs. 80,850 was expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and, therefore, allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard learned advocate Shri J.P. Shah appearing for the assessee and learned advocate Shri Akil Qureshi, appearing for the revenue.3. The circumstances in which the question referred to hereinabove has arisen, in a nutshell, are as under :4. The assessee, Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd., is a subsidiary of Gujarat Agro Industries Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-01-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Guj259
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Gujarat Housing Board has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27th October, 1988 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No. 2, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3799 of 1981 directing the appellant to pay Rs. 6,50,691.00 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12% perannum on the amount of Rs. 6,08,879.00 from the date of the suit till realisation.2. The respondent-plaintiff, a registered partnership firm dealing in building construction activities, had submitted a tender for construction of a building for the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, at Ahmedabad. After negotiations, the appellant original defendant had accepted the tender on 17th August, 1973 and issued a work order to the respondent on 28th November, 1973, fixing the date of commencement of work on 1st December, 1973. According to the respondent, there was delay in issuing the work order due to the fact that the plans for construction had not been approv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-08-2001
Reported in : II(2001)ACC85; 2002ACJ1017; (2001)4GLR2950
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The appellant challenges the judgement and award dated 26th December 1985 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda, at Nadiad in M.A.C. Petition No. 175 of 1983, by which the respondents - claimants were awarded an amount of Rs.1,04,000=00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation and proportionate costs.2. The accident took place on 6th October 1982 on Nadiad - Petlad road in the outskirts of village Rangaipura. At that time, the deceased alongwith others had gone to village Ravipura at the place of the respondent No.6 by his tractor and trailer. After replacing the transformer, the damaged transformer was kept in the trailer. The deceased Mahemudbeg also sat in that trailer and they all were returning from village Ravipura. The tractor was at that time being driven by the respondent No.5. According to the claimants, it was driven at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the tractor was pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-09-2001
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2736
Kundan Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant materials on record.2. This petition has been filed for declaring that in the absence of any agreement between the parties as regards the payment of 'vessel overage extra' it is not permissible to the respondent-Company to demand the said extra overage premium from the petitioner-Company while setting its claim under the two marine policies in question and for a direction to the respondent-Company to pay full amount of claim demanded by the petitioner from the respondent-Company under two marine policies in question and for permanently prohibiting respondent-Company from seeking to recover any amount of overage extra premium from the petitioner company while releasing due payment in favour of the petitioner-Company and for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 15-5-2000 to the extent to overage extra amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner-Company as being of violative of Articl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-21-2001
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR666]; (2002)1GLR755; (2001)IILLJ567Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 9th May, 2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8195 of 1999 (Coram : H. K. Rathod, J. reported in 2001 (2) GLR 1248), by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the Special Civil Application, which was filed by the present appellant and confirmed the orders passed by the Industrial Court as well as by the Labour Court.2. The facts leading to the controversy are as under :-The appellant is a Co-operative Bank. It appoints the employees in different categories, i.e. Apprentice (Trainee), temporary employee, thereafter Probationer; and on completion of probationary period, permanent appointment is given to such employee. The aforesaid mode of recruitment is provided in the Model Standing Orders applicable to the appellant-Bank.3. The present respondent was initially appointed as a Trainee in the Bombay Market Branch between 13th March, 1990 and 21st March, 1991, and d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-16-2001
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR256]
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Institute has challenged the award of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCIDAT) No.248 of 1997 whereby the respondent-workman is ordered to be reinstated with full backwages with costs quantified at Rs.750/-. After the said impugned award was published on 6.8.1999 and the petition was filed and admitted with the grant of ad-interim relief on 13.3.2000, the order of ad-interim stay against operation of the award was modified by the Court (Coram: H.K.Rathod, J.) by ordering the petitioner to pay full current wages with arrears with effect from 9.6.1999 upon receipt of an affidavit from the respondent stating that he was unemployed. The respondent was ordered to file such affidavit in compliance with the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the `I.D.Act' for short). Thereafter, in an application seeking clarification of the order, the above order was modified to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-2001
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3349
B.C. Patel1. The petitioner No.1 - Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in manufacture of Sponge Iron at its plant located at Hazira, Surat. The petitioners, by this petition, have challenged the arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal demand of duty as well as of interest without finalisation of the assessment under the provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962.2. The petitioner-Company purchased a Secondhand Plant on 'as is where is basis ' from Messers Teviot Investments Limited, ( 'TIL' for short ) for manufacture of Hot Briquetted Sponge Iron by Midrex Process. The Plant was to be dismantled which was situated at Emden, Germany and after shipment, the same was to be re-engineered to erect and instal at Hazira, Surat. There was an agreement with Messers Voest Alpine Incorporation ( 'VAI' for short ) and also an agreement with Midrex International whereunder the petitioner was to pay a sum of DM 2 Million, DM 10.10 Million and DM 23 Millio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-09-2001
Reported in : [2002]110CompCas539(Guj); (2002)2GLR1182
C.K. Buch, J.1. The applicants have taken out this Judge's summons for the relief that the order passed by this Court in Company Application No. 160 of 2001 dated 13-6-2001 needs to be recalled. Rest of the reliefs as prayed for by the applicants are ancillary. In the affidavit in support of this Judge's summons filed by Mr. A. Sekar, Power of Attorney holder of Singapore Branch of applicant No. 1-Bank, he has raised various contentions in support of the say that the order requires to be recalled otherwise the applicant Banks being a lender in foreign currency are likely to be prejudiced with the proceedings and the out-come. It is contended and submitted that some of the transactions of opponent Arvind Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'A.M.L.' for short) have rendered A.M.L., inviable and under the strategy, A.M.L. got issued the notification under the Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.R.U. Act' for short ) and A.M.L. und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-28-2001
Reported in : [2002]108CompCas747(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20-7-2001, passed by the learned company judge overruling the preliminary objections raised by the appellant-company to the maintainability of the winding up petition (Company Petition No. 186 of 2000) filed by the present respondent.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:The present respondent ('the petitioning-creditor' or 'the original petitioner') has filed Company Petition No. 186 of 2000 for winding up of the appellant-company under the provisions of sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act). Upon service of notice, the appellant-company appeared and filed affidavit in reply dated 28-2-2001, raising the following preliminary contentions : (i) There is no resolution for institution of winding up proceedings against the respondent-company by the petitioning company;(ii) Mr. S.L. Jain who has filed an affidavit in support of the petition was not autho...
Tag this Judgment!