Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-04-2004
Reported in : (2004)190CTR(Guj)295; [2005]273ITR139(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) at theinstance of the assessee, the following question has beenreferred for our opinion for assessment year 1981-82:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the assessee would be entitled toexemption as contemplated under Section 10(22) ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a trust registered a publiccharitable trust on 10.1.1978. When the trust wasregistered on 10.1.1978 its objects were as under:-(a) To raise and/or improve the standard of educationof the students and for this purpose to run,conduct and/or manage Bal Mandirs, Kindergartens,primary schools, colleges, degree courses,secondary schools, high schools, higher secondaryschools, diploma courses, educational centres,libraries, reading rooms, and other institutionsfor imparting education. (b) To arrange and/or organise meetings, lectures,workshop classes, weekend courses, exhibitions,seminars, symposium and conferences with a viewto raise and/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-07-2004
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1545
C.K. Buch, J.1. Nine jail inmates of Sabarmati Central Prison, situated at Ahmedabad, have jointly moved this writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with reference to provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and have prayed that appropriate writ, direction or order may kindly be issued against the respondents/authorities in terms of relief prayed mainly in sub-Paragraphs (B), (C), (D) and (E)(i) in Paragraph 16 of the petition.2. The Counsel appearing for the parties are heard in piecemeal as the parties have attempted to clarify their stand qua the dispute raised by the petitioners by filing affidavit and counter-affidavit at various stages and have also produced documents in support of their say expressed in the respective affidavits. I have gone through all the affidavits filed and the Counsel appearing for the parties have also taken me through the relevant facts stated in the affidavit filed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2590
ORDER-XXII RULE-10-A10A. Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death of a party. - Where a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.]' Section 141 with Explanation given to it is reproduced as under:'141. Miscellaneous proceedings.- The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction.[Explanation.-In this section, the expression 'proceedings' included proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.]'19. In Puran Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 1092], the apex court has examined the effect of explanation given to Section 141 of the Code of Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-26-2004
Reported in : (2005)2GLR1604
Kshitij R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant(original accused), in this appeal, has challenged the judgment and order dated 6.5.1996 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Godhra in Sessions Case No.186 of 1993 convicting him for offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month.2. The appellant was charged with committing offence of murder of his wife Jigisha by throttling her neck and gagging her mouth with pillow in Kamla Guest House, Halol in the morning hours of 17.7.1993. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.7.1993, the appellant had gone to Kamla Guest House with his wife and daughter aged three years by paying advance charges of Rs. 60/-. Jyotiben, PW 1, the owner of Guest House made entries in the register of the Guest House. She had also informed that she was residing adjacent to the Guest House and in the event of non availability of staff in the office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-18-2004
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1764
R.K. Abhichandani, J.1. These two petitions raising common questions seek to challenge the provisions of Sections 7(1)(b), 14 and 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They also challenge the notification dated 23.2.2000 issued by the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) by which the areas within the jurisdiction of Chakla Bazaar Police Station, Surat were notified rendering carrying on prostitution in any premises within those areas as an offence.Brief facts and pleadings:2. Special Civil Application No.15195 of 2003 has been filed by a public trust, registered only on 25.1.2002, purporting to be an organization consisting of 214 women in prostitution/sex work as its members at Surat. According to the petitioner-organization, it works along with other non-governmental organizations in the field of HIV/AIDS in Surat and the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-19-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2229; (2004)3GLR2129
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Both the appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are directed against common judgment dated March 16, 1999, rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.18, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1998 and Sessions Case No.57 of 1998, by which, the appellants are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) as well as of the offence punishable under Section 379 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default, S.I. for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, as well as R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.3000, in default, S.I. for one month for commission of offences punishable under Section 379 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be stated that the learned Additional City Sessions Judge has directed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-15-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3105; (2005)1GLR149
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This application for condoning delay of 244 days in preferring the criminal revision application was contested for respondents Nos.2 to 4, who are the accused persons in Special Case No.25 of 1993 in which charge sheet of the case was ordered to be returned for production before the competent Court by the order which is sought to be challenged in the main revision application. Such order of returning the charge sheet is stated to have come to be passed after about nine years of pendency of the case and upon death of one of the accused persons charged with the offence under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. The factual background of delay is stated to be that the impugned order dated 31.12.2001 was received by the public prosecutor on 18.1.2002 and was placed in the file of the public prosecutor on 22.1.2002. The public prosecutor advised the investigating officer to file new charge sheet and marked the file to the concerned clerk. The clerk conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-2004
Reported in : (2005)2GLR1033
C.K. Buch, J.1. The petitioners-revisioners, by moving this Revision Application, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment order dated 13th October, 1995, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kutch at Bhuj in Criminal Case No. 1357/1984 and the judgment and order dated 9th June, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj in Criminal Appeal No. 39/1995, confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court holding the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioners are the orig. accused persons of the aforesaid Criminal Case, who have been tried on the strength of the complaint filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein it is alleged that the petitioners tried to export 550 sheep and goats out of which 182 goats were belonging to prohibited category i.e. Barbara breed. The export of goats of Barbara breed was proh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-26-2004
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR828]; (2004)3GLR2628; (2004)IIILLJ990Guj
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr.Mehta waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the warrant issued by the PF authorities dated 30.10.03 for recovery of amount as per order dated 24.9.00 passed under section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and Misc.Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Heard Ms.Nanavaty for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta for the respondent.4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal against the order under section 7A dated 2.4.91 is preferred before the Appellate Tribunal under Act and the application for waiver of condition of the pre-deposit of 75% was made and below the said application the presiding officer of the tribunal had passed order, dated 26.6.03 whereby the appellant was directed to deposit amount of 40%. Ms. Nanavaty has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-08-2004
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR480]; (2005)1GLR135
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.H. Pathak on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Ms.Nandini Joshi appearing on behalf of respondents.2. In these two petitions, the Dailywagers who are working with the Forest Department, have filed these two separate petition claiming benefits of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and benefit of equality on the basis of equal pay for equal work. So far as the first petition Special Civil Application No.7923 of 1996 is concerned, this Court [ Coram : Justice J. N. Bhatt, J. ] has at the time of admitting this matter, on 16.10.96 issued Rule and granted ad-interim relief restrained the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners named as at Annexure-C with a clarification that it will be open for the respondents to terminate their services in accordance with law. It is further ordered that the petitioners named in Annexure-C shall be paid wages calculated or determined at the minimum of the pay scale applic...
Tag this Judgment!