Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-03-2001
Reported in : (2002)4GLR2958
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute, Ahmedabad, respondent No.1, has suspended the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner went on hunger strike on 2nd October, 2000 by sitting at the front entrance of the institution as well as on the ground that he had refused to drive the vehicle of the Institution on 11.10.2000 on the ground that unless he was provided with Log Book, he will not drive the vehicle. On the aforesaid two grounds, the petitioner is placed under suspension since 13th August, 2000.2. The present petitioner is serving as a driver in the respondent No.1-Institution and he is a Class III employee of the said Institution. He is serving since last 16 years on the said post. The petitioner used to drive the vehicle attached to Mr.S. Chandrasekhar, the Director General of the Institution. in the past, the petitioner had addressed certain representations in connection with certain demands.One of such representations is annexed at page 20, Annexure `B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-2001
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1587
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Centuries old, classic, constitutional, conceptual, and critical contest between; a personal liberty, a life of Democracy; 'Rule the Stale by the Normal', on one hand and 'Oh Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name'; on the other, has again been, surfaced in this Referential consideration and adjudication, in this petition based on Constitutional writ remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.PREFATORIAL PROFILE :2. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. All men are endowed by their creator with certain 'unamenable rights'. Justice, Liberty and Equality have been the pursuits of Man in civilized society. Preservation of human life is the most important right for an individual. Personal liberty has been claimed as a part of 'right to life' and with the development of this concept, Courts have come to protect various aspects of personal liberty as part of protection of life. Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-2001
Reported in : [2001(91)FLR660]; (2001)2GLR1626; (2001)IILLJ1007Guj
B.C. Patel, J.1. Learned single Judge of this Court has referred this matter to a Larger Bench. Hence, this matter is placed before this Bench in view of the Order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid petition inter alia contending that the petitioner was serving as a Primary Teacher under the respondent-Board (Ahmedabad Municipal School Board). The petitioner joined on 8-7-1947 as a primary teacher and retired on 30th November, 1982. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on her retirement. She was paid a sum of Rs. 9,618-25 as per the rules in force at the relevant time. However, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner was entitled to a larger sum of Rs. 19,573-80 under the provisions of the Act and not Rs. 9618-25. Since the amount was not paid in full according to the petitioner, an application was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-12-2001
Reported in : (2002)1GLR267
C.K. Buch, J. 1. Rule in both these Applications. Service of Rule is waived by learned A.P.P. Mr. M. A. Bukhari for respondent No. 1-State and by Mr. M. R. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in Misc. Cri. Application No. 5810 of 2000. Similarly, service of Rule is waived by learned A.P.P. Mr. N. D. Gohil for respondent No. 1-State and by Mr. M. R. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in Misc. Cri. Application No. 2185 of 2001. 1-A. Both these Misc. Criminal Applications are preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying bail by the petitioners-accused of Sessions Case No. 369 of 1999 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad. Sessions Case is registered on the strength of the charge-sheet filed at the conclusion of investigation of F.I.R. registered on 29-10-1998 by C.B.I., Mumbai vide C.R. No. R.C. 3(S)/S.C.B./98-Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 365 of I.P.C. C.B.I., Mumbai on investigation, charge-sheeted five numbers of acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-14-2001
Reported in : [2001]252ITR577(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The applicant-assessee sought a reference comprising six questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmeda-bad Bench 'B', has raised and referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 2,05,509 incurred on office building was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 29,392 incurred on borewell was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 1981. The assessee-company is a private limited company, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-14-2001
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(Guj)122
D.A. Mehta, J.The applicant- assessee sought reference comprising six questions under sections 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B, has raised and referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court.'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure in Rs. 2,05,509 incurred on office building was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure?'(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 29,392 incurred on borewell was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 1981. The assessee-company is a private limited company, carrying on busines...
Tag this Judgment!