Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-11-2014
Oral Judgment: Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the common judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4259 of 2007 and other allied matters. 2. The short facts are that the respondent herein executed a Memorandum of Entry (hereinafter referred to as the instrument for short) dated 18th March 1993 by way of mortgage in favour of Financial Institutions/Banks. Before the execution of the instrument, the respondent made an application to appellant No.2 under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) for adjudication of proper stamp duty leviable under the provisions of the Act. The appellant No.2 herein determined the stamp duty leviable at Rs.10,000/. On adjudication of stamp duty by appellant No.2, the respondent herein paid the said amount to appellant No.2. Hence, the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-13-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') dated 22/03/2013 in ITA No. 159/Ahd/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 by which the tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee holding that the activities of the assessee were in the filed of education and the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and consequently quashed and set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,42,11,129/- with the proposed following substantial question of law; "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the activities of the assessee are in the field of education and that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-15-2014
Cav Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This Special Civil Application has been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Jayant Patel and Mohinder Pal, JJ. under the following circumstances :- 1.1 The writ-petitioner had filed this Special Civil Application for quashing and setting aside the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act hereafter), dated 30th January, 2008 and the further Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 29th April 2008 by which , the land of the petitioner bearing original Survey No.25/2 and 25/3 and 25/4 (now final plot No.50) was acquired. 1.2 When the matter was at the final hearing stage before the referring Bench, the said Bench decided to call for the original file from the State-respondent and it appears from the original file of the State Government that after the proposal was received by the Government, there were various correspondences, but the most important aspect was that the State G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-05-2014
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner, running an NGO in the name of "Jagte Raho" at Vadodara, has prayed that the work of construction of a flyover at the Harinagar Junction on Gotri Road of Vadodara City be stopped and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation be directed to reconsider its decision of constructing the Flyover at the Harinagar junction. 2. The petition in public interest is substantially on two grounds. First, that the corporation has awarded the contract for construction of the flyover without studying the report of the Central Road Research Institute and secondly, the contract has been awarded at a much higher price. 3. The respondent no.1 - Vadodara Municipal Corporation has denied the allegations leveled in the petition and prays that the petition is not a bonafide Public Interest Litigation and the same is at the behest of one Shri Pravinsinh, a private individual whose property falls in the alignmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-24-2014
Common Cav Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. All these Special Civil Applications were heard analogously as in all these matters, the questions that had arisen for consideration were whether the provisions contained in section 2 (1)(o) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act or SARFAESI Act] and clause 2.1 of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India known as Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning “ pertaining to Advances are ultra vires the Constitution of India, and, consequently, the actions taken by various Banks concerned under the Securitisation Act are illegal and without authority of law. 2. We, however, propose to treat the Special Civil Application No. 14908 of 2012 as the lead matter. 3. The case made out by the petitioners in SCA No. 14908 of 2012 may be summed up thus: [a]. The petitioners are the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-11-2014
1. All these References were taken up for hearing together as the same question of law as formulated below has been referred before this Bench by the learned Single Judge in all the Special Civil Applications: In absence of specific exclusion of applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 [Act, 1963] in Bombay Stamp Act, application under Section 53 of the Act 1958 [Act, 1958] whether delay in filing appeal/application under Section 53 of the Act, 1958 beyond the prescribed time limit of within 90 days from the date of passing the order by the Collector/competent authority could be condoned by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Appellate Authority or the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be by taking recourse to Sections 3,5 and 29 of the Act, 1963? It appears that before the learned Single Judge, the petitioners challenged the orders passed by the authority under section 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 [the Act for short] by w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-17-2014
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an association of the members of the staff engaged in œCost of Cultivation Scheme of Agro Economic Research Center?, seeks to challenge the action of the respondents in denying their legal right to get the pension in accordance with the service rules. 2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summarized as under: 2.1 In order to promote and study the agro-economic problems experienced in the various parts of the country, the respondent no.3- Union of India proposed to set up œAgro Economic Research Center? for western India at Vallabh Vidhyanagar under the then Vallabhbhai Vidhyapith (now known as œSardar Patel University?). 2.2 The said center covered the State of Rajasthan as well as the State of Gujarat. Likewise, similar centers were opened in different parts of the country. 2.3 The center for Gujarat and Rajasthan started functioning with effect from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-03-2014
Bhaskara Bhattacharya, C.J. 1. All these Special Civil Applications were taken up together as the subject-matter of challenge in all these applications is the legality and validity of a Circular dated 9th May 2007 issued by the Respondent No. 2 purporting to be as part of simplification of the Rule 45[1] of Registration ,viz. the Gujarat Registration Rules, 1970. 2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be profitable to refer to the Circular dated 9th May 2007 which is quoted below:- xxx xxx xxx œCIRCULAR: In the State the documents of the immovable properties are registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. From experience it is learnt that, in the absence of sufficient knowledge about the law/rules the documents with insufficient stamp duty are lying in the office without registration. Due to non-registration of the pending documents the copy of the document and the index-2 are not supplied, due to this reason the party has misunderstandings without any reaso...
Tag this Judgment!