Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-28-2005
Reported in : (2005)1GLR603
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The State of Gujarat, through the Employees State Insurance Scheme, through its Director of Medical Services, E.S.I. Scheme, Ahmedabad, appellant - original petitioner (herein after referred to as petitioner) has filed this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9316 of 1993. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, has partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner. The learned Judge also modified the award dated 28.12.1992 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad, in Reference (LCV) No. 1718 of 1990, to the extent that Damjibhai Chakubhai Patel - opponent original respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent), Medical Officer in Ayurvedic Division, shall be entitled to 40% back wages for the period from 27.4.1989 till he is reinstated in service. The learned Judge confirmed the rest of the award and made the rule absolute t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-21-2005
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR1105]; (2005)2GLR1592; (2005)IIILLJ669Guj
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.1.2003 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant-bank's petition seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are not applicable to the appellant-bank, which is a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under :-2.1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat State, the respondent herein, issued notice dated 15.2.2000 (Annexure 'B') calling upon the appellant-bank to comply with the provisions of the Act with effect from 1.4.1997 on the ground that the appellant-bank is an establishment engaged in one of the industries specified in Schedule I to the Act. The establishments classified as banks other than Nationalized Banks are covered by the provisions of the Act by the Government of India notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-10-2005
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR578]; (2005)IILLJ813Guj
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. The Petitioner-Dr. Harendra Madanjit Desai is before this Court, being aggrieved of Order dated October 24, 2003 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Gratuity Application No. PGA-39/2001, and order dated July 19, 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1977 in Appeal No. 29/2004.2. The case of the Petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that the Petitioner has worked as a part time 'Anaesthetist' and was removed from service, after a long service from March 15, 1958 to March 1995 (paragraph-1 of the petition). It is his own case that he has been paid his salary, provident fund, family pension and other dues, but, he was not paid gratuity and hence, he moved an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Petitioner was working with the hospital run by Respondent No. 1. i.e. Kasturba Vaidyakiya Rahat Mandal, as a part time 'Anaesthetist'. He w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-29-2005
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(Guj)1; [2006]280ITR282(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1 In all these Tax Appeals the following substantial question of law which arises for determination has been framed at the time of admission : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act,1961 on interest income as being attributable to the business of banking ?2 On behalf of the appellant-revenue Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel has taken the lead while Mr. B.B. Naik and Mr. T.U. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel have supplemented the contentions on behalf of the revenue. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent assessees Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate has taken the lead. Mr. R.K. Patel, Mr. S.N. Divetia, Mr. K.R. Dixit and Mr. T.P. Hemani, learned Advocates have also addressed the Court. Mr. K.H. Kazi, learned Advocate has been permitted to intervene and address the Court.3 The Assessment Year in Tax Appeal No. 208 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-24-2005
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(Guj)102; [2006]285ITR67(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad:For Assessment Year 1982-83:1.Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,33,000/- made by the I.T.O. on account of cost of construction of the building?2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that running the Heart Hospital and the Intensive Coronary Care Unit is an independent business activity quite different from professional services rendered as a Physician and in further holding that the Intensive Coronary Care Unit is a small scale undertaking within the meaning of Section 32A of the I.T. Act and directing the I.T.O. to allow investment allowance on Heart Monitoring Machine and tread Mill Machine in the hospital ?3. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-04-2005
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR106]; (2005)3GLR2066; (2006)ILLJ378Guj; 2005(3)CLR727
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Present is an appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent by the dissatisfied employer against the order dated 8.2.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2490 of 1998, whereunder the award dated 10.3.1997 made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 854 of 1987 has been approved with a direction in favour of the respondent-workman for his reinstatement with 60% back-wages. 2. The appellant is before this Court with a complaint that the Labour Court, so also the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the respondent was not coming within the sweep of the definition of Sworkman as given under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the two courts below were absolutely unjustified in observing that the respondent-workman did not commit any mistake which could lead to his termination.3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the present respondent was employed in the year 1963, subseq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-16-2005
Reported in : AIR2005Guj222; (2005)2GLR1107
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are preferred from the common judgment by, or on the basis of which the petitions of the appellants are rejected and challenge of the educational institutions to the fee-structure prescribed by Justice R.J. Shah (Retd.) Fee Committee for Self-financed Professional Colleges is turned down. That Fee Committee, originally joined as the only respondent, was set up pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [(2003) 6 SCC 697]. Subsequently, the State of Gujarat have been added by an amendment as a party-respondent and the Parents Association of Medical and Dental Students has also joined as party-respondent. Some students of the medical colleges at Karamsad and Surat also applied for being joined as parties and their advocates were also heard.2. According to the impugned judgment, mainly two contentions were raised to assail the decision of the respondent Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-06-2005
Reported in : 2005(186)ELT279(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges order No.M-73/WZB/05/C-IV dated 24.02.2005 passed by The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT) (Annexure-H). The facts in nutshell leading to the controversy are :2. The petitioner, a partnership firm was called upon to discharge duty demand of a sum of Rs.11,77,068/- vide Order-In-Original No. 987/Modvat/1997 dated 19.12.1997. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot who vide Order-In-Appeal No.1073/2001/Commr(A)/Raj dated 29.11.2001 allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the Central Excise Department filed an appeal before CESTAT.3. It is the say of the petitioner that under letter F.No.AR-IV/Sanghani Steel/Rec/04-05 dated 27.10.2004 respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to discharge the liability as CESTAT had passed its order dated 5.3.2004 bearing No.C-III/1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-14-2005
Reported in : [2005]64SCL480(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. These are the petitions filed by three petitioner Companies for sanction of a Scheme of Amalgamation of the three (the Transferor Companies) with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (the Transferee Company) under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. Since all the Transferor Companies are the wholly owned subsidiaries of the Transferee Company, the separate proceedings for the Transferee Company were dispensed with by the previous orders of this Court.2. All the petitioner Companies are deemed limited companies being the wholly owned subsidiary of a listed public limited Company and belong to the same group of management. All the petitioner Companies are engaged in investment activities. The amalgamation is proposed for the synergic advantages. The petitions give details of the advantages that would flow by virtue of the amalgamation of these Companies.3. The proposed Scheme was approved unanimously by the Equity Shareholders as the nominees of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-12-2005
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2088
Akshay H. Mehta, J.Rule. Mr. RC Kodekar, Ld. APP waives service of rule.1. This is a suo-motu proceeding taken up by this Court in view of certain shocking facts that had come to its notice from the newspaper report. Kantilal Shivlal Patel [Amrutiya] has become the subject matter of the proceedings or the focus of our attention on account of the said newspaper report since it revealed that though he has been convicted for a serious offence like murder and conspiracy under section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, he had been enjoying A Class comforts in the Civil Hospital under a false pretext of having a heart ailment.2. The said convict prisoner was prosecuted along with several other accused for having committed murder of one Prakash Raveshiya on account of political rivalry. His trial took place in the Court of learned Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2000, who by judgment...
Tag this Judgment!