Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2005Guj40; (2005)1GLR247
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent no.1 Company of disconnection of electricity supply and have prayed for a declaration that the respondent no.1 company has no power and authority to disconnect the power supply in absence of express provisions of Act or Rules framed thereunder.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.1 has committed breach of section 126 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 2003') as the Assessing Officer has to make inspection of the premises of the petitioner, has to issue notice of hearing and thereafter only, the assessment under section 126 of the Act of 2003 can be made by the respondent no.1 company. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the alleged theft of electricity, the respondent no. 1 company has no power of disconn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)ILLJ969Guj
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1.0 By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service dated 5.9.2001 and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including backwages with 12% interest. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 17th April 2002 and the order dated 28th March 2003 passed in the Review Application.2.0 The petitioner was serving as Chief Officer, Corporate Service Department, Bank of India.A chargesheet date 7th June 2000 was served to the petitioner for holding a departmental inquiry in respect of four charges. One Shri Raj Bahadur, Deputy Chief Regional Manager was appointed to hold the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer, after holding the inquiry, submitted his report dated 28.9.2000 and held that all the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved.2.1 The Chief Regional Manager, after getting the inquiry report by letter dated 9.11.2000 called the petitioner to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2701; (2004)IILLJ282Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. Since the point involved in this group of Special Civil Applications is common and since all these petitions are filed against the common Award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, all these petitions, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, are decided by this common judgment.2. The point which is involved in these petitions is in connection with the status of the employees, who have been transferred from one Undertaking / Company to another Company, by an Agreement, and, ultimately, the effect of cancellation of such agreement. The concerned workmen were, initially, appointed by Apart Private Limited, a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. At the relevant time, they were discharging their duties in the Welding Electrodes Division of the said Company. In the year 1987, an Agreement was entered into between the said Apart Private Limited and one Lotherme Electrodes (India) Private Limited, by whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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
Reported in : (2002)173CTR(Guj)193
R.K. Abichandani, J.All these four references have been argued at length together and they concern the same assessee and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In IT Ref. No. 56 of 1986 (which emanates from the quantum proceedings in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'For the assessment years 1979-90 at the instance of the assessee :(1) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 66,29,236 being the amount of interest as determined by the Income Tax Officer on a notional basis from 1-7-1977 to 30-6-1978, was liable to tax on accrual basis for assessment year 1979-80 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2002]257ITR355(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. All these four references have been argued at length together and they concern the same assessee and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Income Tax Reference No. 56 of 1986 (which emanates from the quantum proceedings in respect of the Assessment Years 1979-80 and 1980-81), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad has referred the following questions of for the opinion of this Court :'For the A.Y. 1979-80 - at the instance of the assessee :[1] Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 66,29,236/- being the amount of interest as determined by the Income Tax Officer on a notional basis from 1-7-1977 to 30-6-1978 was liable to tax on accrual basis for A.Y. 1979-80?[2] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest accrued from day-to-day as a result of supplementary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)2GLR1357; (2002)2GLR422
D.M. Dharmaphikari, C.J. 1. In these three Petitions pertaining to election to Federal-cum-Specified Co-operative Societies of Siddhpur and Patan Talukas, a common question of law has been raised, and therefore, they are being decided by this Common Judgment.2. This would require examination of the scheme of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules') as also the bye-laws of the two Taluka Societies Siddhpur and Patan, before us.3. Only few necessary facts are required to be stated at the outset. In the year 1997, the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat bifurcated certain Districts and Talukas by creating new Districts and new Talukas. Under the aforesaid bifurcation, the State Government created a new District Patan carving out some villages from Mehsana District. The State Government also excluded some of the villages forming part of Siddhpur Revenue Taluka and included them in a newly form...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2002Guj23; (2002)1GLR880
K.R. Vyas, J.1. Since a common question of law, namely whether the residents/Gram Panchayat are required to be heard while reconstituting or abolishing talukas or shifting one village from one taluka to another taluka, arises in these appeals, both these Letters Patent Appeals are required to be heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 699 of 2000 arises out of the judgment and order dated 20-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 14 of 2000. The said writ petition was filed by ten members of Kahoda Gram Panchayat and one resident of Kahoda, challenging the Government notification dated 31-12-1999 shifting village Kahoda from Sidhpur taluka of Patan District and placing it in Unjha taluka of Mehsana District.3. It may be stated that prior to reconstitution of the districts and talukas in October, 1997, Kahoda was in Sidhpur taluka of Mehsana District. Mehsana District was bifurcated into Mehsana District and Patan D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj261; (2000)2GLR1422
M.S. Parikh, J.1. Short question which requires consideration by this Full Bench as referred to by a learned single Judge of this Court as per oral judgment dated 14-10-1999 [Coram : K.R. Vyas, J.] is: Whether the payment by cheque which is dishonoured amounts to acknowledgement of a debt and a liability ?2. For the purpose of answering the Reference, let there be a brief resume of the facts and reasons for Reference.The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 61,886-16 plus Rs. 11,124/- by way of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 4-3-1974 from the defendant (The parties were respectively the appellant and the respondent in the First Appeal proceedings). The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 26,371.86 with running interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till payment holding that that such claim was within the time, whereas the rest of the claim was barred by law of limitation. It was contended in the appeal that the cheques Exhs. 117 and 119 dated 15-4-1974 and 27-3-1974 ...
Tag this Judgment!