Court : Gujarat
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
Reported in : (1974)15GLR322
T.U. Mehta, J.1. An interesting question which arises to be determined in this Revision Application is how far the Government of India is exempt from the liability arising out of loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, resulting from fraud or wilful act or default of an officer of the Post Office in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff is a firm manufacturing and selling cloth at Ahmedabad. On 9th February, 1965 it sent three Registered Post parcels containing cloth through Gandhi Road post office. The first parcel which was bearing No. 56 contained cloth worth Rs. 765.42. The second parcel bearing No. 68 contained cloth worth Rs. 285/- and the third parcel bearing No. 64 contained cloth worth Rs. 804.94. When the parcels were presented to the addressees they refused to accept the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)2GLR961
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and perused the Special Civil Application.2. The petitioner has expired during the pendency of this Special Civil Application and his heirs and legal representatives have already been brought on record.3. None of the respondents including the respondent No. 5 has filed reply to this Special Civil Application.4. The land in dispute is admeasuring 18 sq. mts. only. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are Vasava by Caste and they were the owners and in possession of the said land from whom the petitioner purchased this land by registered sale deed on 16-6-19X1 for Rs. 800/-. After purchasing this land, the petitioner constructed a pucca house after spending considerable amount and that house is being used by the petitioner for the purpose of residence and keeping the agricultural implements. The petitioner stated that the land is a Gamthan land (Gabhan).5. The Deputy Collector initiated suo motu inquiry by giving notice to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1997Guj136; (1997)1GLR602
ORDERM.S. Parikh, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1, a Co-operative Housing Society registered underthe Bombay Co-operative Societies Act,1955, and petitioner No. 2 a member and thePresident of the petitioner No. 1 -Society haveinvoked extraordinary jurisdiction of thisCourt under Article 226 as also under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India seeking followingreliefs:-- '(A) ... be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the directions of the 1st respondent vide letters dated 2-5-1995 at Annexure-N hereto and 16-8-1995 at Annexure-D hereto. (B) ... be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in, the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction quashing and setting aside the orders dated 28-5-1996 of the learned nominee at Annexure-K hereto and that of the Tribunal dated 8-8-1996 at Annexure-L hereto and be pleased to further restrain the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and/or thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Guj)340
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following three questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961, could not be reagitated after the said point was consciously waived by the assessee vide letter dt. 10th Aug., 1990, submitted to the CIT(A) ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessing authority had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment under Section 147(a) of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,85,900 representing the difference between purchase price of the first floor of the house property at Athugar Street, Nanpura, Surat, as recorded in the seized diary and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas227(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the Bank of Baroda Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferor-company') for the sanction of the court to a scheme of arrangement for its amalgamation with Mahindra Ugine Steel Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee-company') under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and for consequential directions under section 394 of the Act. * * * *2. I must now turn to the consideration of the question as to whether sanction should be accorded to the scheme. It is well-settled that in exercising its discretion in according sanction, the court will consider, first, whether the statutory provisions have been complied with; secondly, whether the classes were fairly represented by those who attended the meeting and whether the statutory majority were acting bona fide, and, thirdly, whether the scheme is such as a man of business would reasonably approve. Bearing in mind these princ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]104ITR132(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. In all these five matters, the question which is referred to us by the Tribunal is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in finding that the payment of the betterment charges to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1954, made by the assessee was allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts of only one case, which is covered by Reference No. 9/74, and which relates to the assessee, Rohit Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad. In that case, the year of assessment with which we are concerned is 1962-63. The question relates to the admissibility or otherwise of the payment which is made by the assessee under section 66 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' as contribution towards the costs of town planning scheme. The facts of the case show that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2006Guj84
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in detail and as per the oral request extended by them, we have accepted written submissions in brief for convenience and in the background of intrinsic facts and legal points involved in the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have argued at length and they have also submitted, in brief, their submissions in writing, and therefore, we have dealt with certain factual as well as legal aspects and their merits prima facie; and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on all the points, so that they can make their points good while placing their say arguing the above First Appeal. Our findings, therefore, are tentative and we have recorded them for the purpose of dealing with present Civil Application.2. The present Civil Application is moved by the applicant-appellant-orig. plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') praying for interim relief that pending hearing and dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]101ITR46(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a private limited company and has approached this court in this petition for obtaining writ of certiorari to set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 1, who is the Commissioner of Income-tax, on January 29, 1970, dismissing the petitioner's revision application filed under section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 and section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, on the ground of limitation. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for a similar writ for setting aside the orders of assessment of is income for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 as they have treated the expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of debentures as capital expenditure, to deductible from the gross income earned by the petitioner during the relevant account periods. 2. Short facts of the case which from the background of this petition are as under. For the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 the petitioner is said to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2001CriLJ3105
H.H. Mehta, J.1. The original accused No.2 of Criminal Case No.1106/97 which is still pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16, Ahmedabad (for short `the learned Magistrate') has by filing this Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenged correctness, legality and propriety of judgment Exh.14 dated 15th September, 1999, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (for short `the learned Judge of the Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision Application No.148/99.2. Here in this Criminal Revision Application, the Revision-Petitioner is an original accused No.2 while revision opponents No.1 and 2 are complainant and accused No.1 respectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter as `complainant' and `accused No.1 and 2' respectively at appropriate places.3. The facts leading to this Criminal Revision Application in a nutshell are as...
Tag this Judgment!