Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-01-2002
Reported in : (2002)3GLR149
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. A. D. Oza, for the respondents.The applicants have approached this Court seeking clarification of the judgment rendered in group of aforesaid First Appeals, dated 22-7-1997 by this Court (Coram : J.N. Bhatt and H.R. Shelat, JJ.). The applicants have prayed that this Court may clarify that all the claimants in the aforesaid First Appeals are entitled to receive and the opponents are liable to pay to them the amount of solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') on the enhanced amount of market value which has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 53/- per sq. mtr. and further that the claimants are also entitled to receive the statutory benefits available to them by virtue of operation of Section 23(1-A) of the Act.2. Some relevant facts which are absolutely essential for deciding this application can be stated in brief as follows :-2.1. The applicants are the original owners of different agricultura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-10-2002
Reported in : (2003)4GLR256
..... process and it cannot be stated that such an error is apparent or patent on the face of the award. whether under the context of the terms and conditions of a contract, a stipulation in the form and nature of cl. 14(ii) operates as a special provision to the exclusion of section 73 of the contract act is a matter of appreciation of facts in a case, and when the decision thereon is not patently absurd or wholly unreasonable, there is no scope for interference by ..... decree should be framed in terms of the judgment passed by it, the order is to be treated to be an order refusing to set aside an award and appeal is maintainable against the order under section 39(1)(vii) of the act.'7. mr. mankad has further submitted that the arbitrator has committed an error in passing the arbitration award especially when the civil suit challenging the appointment of the arbitrator was ..... theclaimant @ rs.4000/- per monthfor six monthsrs. 24,000.00 rs. 18,000.0010. refund of security deposit rs. 15,000.00 rs. 15,000.0011. cost of arbitration rs. 20,000.00 rs. 20,000.00............... ...............total rs.5,93,500. ..... quashed and set aside. in support of this submission, mr. mankad has relied on the judgment of apex court in the case of dewan singh v. champat singh & ors. reported in a.i.r. 1970 sc 967, wherein it is held that `the proceedings before the arbitrators are quasi-judicial proceedings. they must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. the parties to the submission .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-27-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ565; (2002)3GLR599
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The appellant in this appeal has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulsar at Navsari vide judgment dated 31-3-1994 in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1991 and the resultant order of sentence of imprisonment for life.2. The case of prosecution in nutshell can be stated as under :-2.1. Deceased Sumiben Natubhai lived in locality known as Mograwadi, near Bhut Bungalow in Bulsar with her family which comprised her husband and three children. She had developed illicit intimacy with the appellant 2 to 3 years prior to the date of incident. As a result of that intimacy, the appellant often visited her place. On one of such visits which took place on 22-8-1991 at about 9-00 p.m. the appellant demanded liquor from the deceased. Acceding to his request, the deceased gave him a glass full of liquor. After consuming the liquor, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 30/- from her. Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-19-2002
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Guj)266; [2003]259ITR526(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This reference has been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated March 13, 2001, passed by a Division Bench of this court taking the view that the decision of another Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Windsor Foods Ltd : [1999]235ITR249(Guj) , dealing with the question of interplay between the provisions of Section 32A (investment allowance) and those of Section 32A (relating to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), requires reconsideration.2. The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing fertilizers and other products. The assessee entered into a contract for purchasing plant and machineries (the assets) from a Japanese company on deferred credit basis. Though the year of purchase is not clear from the paper book, the assessee was required to make payment in instalments over a period of 12 years (page 203).3. The liability for the instalments towards the cost of the assets for the calendar years 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Guj134; (2002)4GLR3421
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. In the facts and the circumstances of this case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today and the learned advocates for the parties have been heard at length.2. This petition by a former president of the Nadiad Municipality challenges the order dated 27th November, 2001 (Annexure A) passed by the Director of Municipalities under Section 70(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ('the Act' for brevity) requiring the petitioner to pay the municipality a sum of Rs. 1,00,989/-.3. The petitioner was elected as a councillor of Nadiad Municipality for the period between 1994 to 1999. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Municipality for the period between 10-1-1998 and 10-1-1999. By the notice dated 27-7-1999, the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State ('the Director' for brevity) called upon the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,989/- to the Municipality on the ground that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-11-2002
Reported in : (2002)3GLR509
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. What is obvious is always known and what is known is not always present. . John Preface Dictionary. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.C. Raval for Mr. M.R. Anand Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Advocate on behalf the respondent. 2. In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the order of termination passed by the respondent with a prayer to reinstate them with all consequential benefits along with back wages for the interim period. This Court has issued the rule on 6-12-1991 and the following order has been passed : 'Rule. Interim relief restraining the respondents from confirming the persons mentioned in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition and directing the respondent to give preference to petitioners as and when temporary and ad hoc appointments are to be made to the post in question. It is also directed that the petitioners will be considered for the post in question for regular appointments if and when regular...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-27-2002
Reported in : AIR2000Guj241
ORDERK.M. Mehta, J. 1. M/s. Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd., petitioner-original plaintiff has filed this suit against the Owners of the Ship or Vessel 'Asean Crystal' (now known as Asean Mariner) owned by Universal Maritime Shipholding Ltd. defendant No. 1 and Glory Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. of Singapore defendant No. 2 that respondents-defendants be ordered and decreed to pay US $ 15,17,770 equivalent to Rs. 6,82,99,650/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Two Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only) along with interest @ 18% from the date of the suit till payment as also an amount of Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per day by way of damages from the date of the suit till the disposal of the suit and till the amount is paid, along with interest @ 18% thereon. The petitioner also prayed that the respondents-defendants be directed not to transfer the Asean Crystal (Asian Mariner) Vessel or any other vessels or other properties belong to the defendants. That suit was filed so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-19-2002
Reported in : (2002)175CTR(Guj)412
R.K. Abichandani, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the house property was used for residential purpose and therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 so as to have the property valued as on 1-4-1971 ?'2. The matter pertains to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 in respect of which, in the returns of 'wealth-tax for these two years, the assessee took up a stand that the value of the house property should be taken in the assessment year 1971-72 at Rs. 2,17,400, and not' as per the valuation report at Rs. 9,34,650. The Wealth Tax Officer, holding that the assessee was a non-resident and the property was not occupied by him for the whole year, held that section 7(4) of the said Act was not applicable to him, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-25-2002
Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ236Guj
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Heirs and legal representatives of deceased Babubhai Maganbhai Patanwadia have filed First Appeal against the judgment and award dated January 8, 2002 passed by the Employees' State Insurance (hereinafter referred to as E.S.I.) Court in Second Appeal No. 16 of 1999. The E.S.I. Court has held that when deceased Babubhai Maganbhai Patanwadia was working with Alembic Glass he was suffering from the disease of Silicosis and that the deceased had 60% disability.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under:The learned counsel for the original appellant late Shri Babubhai Maganbhai Patanwadia submits that the appellant was serving in Alembic Glass Industries Limited, Vadodara since more than 10 years. In view of his employment he suffered an ailment of Silicosis. The original appellant was examined by the Medical Board on March 12, 1986. The Medical Board awarded 10% disability. The appellant has produced copy of the order passed by the Medical Board at Annexure-A t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-13-2002
Reported in : (2003)2GLR956
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent No. 1 - Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. in issuing Letter of Intent dated 11th July, 2002 in favour the respondent No. 2 -M/s T.R.F. Limited, for award of the contract for Designing, Engineering, Manufacture, Supply, Transportation, Erection, Testing and Commissioning of 600 T.P.H. Lignite Handling System and 300 T.P.H. Lime Handling System on turnkey basis for its Akrimota Thermal Power Project, and have sought a direction on the respondent No. 1 to disqualify the tender of the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company engaged in the field of design, engineering, manufacture, supply, installation of bulk material handling plants and equipments for power and other industries. The respondent No. 1 invited tenders for their Akrimota Thermal Power Project on 1st March, 2001. The tender documents contained details about the scope of work and other instructions and c...
Tag this Judgment!