Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2005Guj306
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are claiming the status as vegetable merchant, have approached this Court for challenging the order passed by the Collector dated 28.8.2000, whereby various directions are given, inter alia, to collect difference of the market price as per the Rules in response to the shops which are allotted to Respondents No. 4 to 9. As per the case of the petitioners, Chora Building at which the shopping centre is constructed is required to be used for vegetable market and not for any other purpose. It appears that respondent No. 3 Municipality had passed the resolution for construction of Santrampur Urban Development Coop. Bank Limited Vegetable Market. Thereafter, the building was constructed and so far as Respondents No. 4 to 9 are concerned, the Municipality passed the resolution No. 149 dated 30.7.1998, whereby the Municipality resolved for accepting the development amount as Rs. 40,000/= for the persons who were havin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2005(102)ECC42
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following substantial reliefs:'[A] That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Final Order No. A-847/WZB/2004/C-III dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure-'K') thereby directing, the CESTAT, the second respondent herein, to hear Appeal No. C/906/99 on merits and render a decision on this appeal on merits of the claim of the petitioner company;[B] That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, holding and declaring that letter/s dated 29.9.1998 and/or 5.1.1999 were appealable order and the appeal before the CESTAT, the second respondent herein, was maintainable against these letter/s, or in the alternative, Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1649
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions challenge one order dated 2.8.2006 made by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. A.R. 1/03 and hence, both these petitions are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to take, the matters have been heard finally. Rule. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective respondents in both the petitions waive service of Rule.2. A Trust known by the name of Saurashtra Rachanatmak Samiti, Rajkot was holding properties consisting of shed No. 20 comprising of building and appurtenant land, as well as adjoining plot Nos. 63 and 64. The total area of the land in question was 3223 sq.yds. Admittedly the land is a lease hold land for a period of 99 years, while the shed was taken on hire purchase terms from Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation on 30.8.1973. On 1.1.2002 the Trust entered into a leave and licence agreement with one N.J. Patel Brass Works, Rajkot for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the first information report registered as Ist C.R. No. 151/2010, registered with Pune/Puna Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections-302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned Advocate for the applicant, Shri. Hardik A. Dave, submitted that the charge-sheet is filed and considering the role attributed to the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail, by imposing suitable conditions.3. Heard learned APP for the the respondentState, who opposed the grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, by imposing suitable conditions.5. Learned cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This writ petition in the public interest has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the 1^st respondent to cancel the Environment Clearance granted in favour of the 3^rd respondent for the breach of the Environment Clearance dated 11.6.2010.2. It appears that a public interest litigation was previously preferred by Kutch Jilla Machhimar Association in Special Civil Application No. 8993 of 2009 against the proposed setting up of a power plant at Bhadreshwar in Kutch district by the 3^rd respondent. 3. The said case was disposed of on 3.2.2010 wherein the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority of the State was asked to give hearing to the party and after verifying the location and project site, to decide the matter. The petitioner Association of the said writ petition was also allowed to point out the infirmities. Thereafter, the authorities having granted conditional Environmental Clearance by the impugned order dated 11.6.2010, now a grievance has been made that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The party in person Mr. PM Shah power of Attorney Holder of applicant heirs of Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala original defendant tenant is not remained present today, though, on 23/12/2010, following order has been passed by this Court:1.1 Mr. Paresh M. Shah not party in person being a Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala, who has filed present Civil Revision Application no. 1871/2010 under provisions of Bombay Rent Act.2. The present Civil Revision Application is preferred by heirs of Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala original defendant Tenant. The heirs of Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala are Subhanabibi Jamalji Nagorwala, Mohmmad Sarif Jamalji Nagorwala, Yususfbhai Jamalji Nagorwala, Ayubbhai Jamalji Nagorwala, Ismailji Jamalji Nagorwala, Ibrahim Jamalji Nagorwala, Yakub Jamalji Nagorwala, Faruk Jamalji Nagorwala, Siddiq Jamalji Nagorwala, Rajjak Jamalji Nagorwala appeared as petitioners.3. Party in person Mr. PM Shah pointed out to this Court that he is being a Power of Attorney Holder of aforesaid petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that the claim for interest expenses of Rs.26,40,09,503/- on Deep Discount Bond has, in fact, been disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order framed by him under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2009, against which the petitioner has preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. Inviting attention to the second proviso to section 147 of the Act, it has been submitted that it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to assess or re-assess such income other than the income involving matters which are subject matters of any appeal, reference or refund, which is chargeable to tax and has esca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. RULE Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.2. By instant application field under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant convict, who vide judgment and order dated 22.3.2010, rendered in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2006, by the learned Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Amreli, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years, has prayed for suspension of sentence and to enlarge him on bail during the pendency and final hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2010.3. This Court vide order dated 13.5.2010 has Admitted Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2010.4. At the time of hearing of this application, Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. M.J. Mehta, learned Advocate for the applicant does not press this application and seeks leave to withdraw the same in view of the order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. RULE.2. Mr. R.C.Kodekar, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. By filing instant application, the applicant convict, who, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 rendered in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Chhota Udepur, Vadodara, has prayed to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days to enable him to perform betrothal ceremony of his daughter, which is scheduled on 26.1.2011.5. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mrs. Nisha M. Parikh, learned Advocate for the applicant convict and Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application. We have also gone through the jail remark sheet submitted by the learned APP.6. Upon perusal of the jail remark sheet, we have no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Since common issue is involved in all these Civil Revision Applications, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are taken from Civil Revision Application No.51 of 2004.3. The petitioner State of Gujarat has filed all these Civil Revision Applications challenging the judgment and order dated 04.04.2003 passed below Exh.1 in Land Reference Darkhast No.10 of 2002 by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh awarding interest on the solatium.4. All these Civil Revision Applications were admitted and rule was issued in each of these matters and interim relief was granted against further proceedings of Execution Petitions.5. The brief facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision Application are that all these Land Reference Cases were decided and as per the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the amounts were deposited and no further appeals were filed. However, on the...
Tag this Judgment!