Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3127
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order dated 8th March, 1999 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 208 of 1998, by which the appellant is convicted under Sections 8(C) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`the NDPS Act' for short) and punished with R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One lac Only), in default to undergo R.I. for six months.2. The name of Mr. Mehul S. Shah was notified as the learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shah produced a letter dated 16th March, 2002 addressed to the appellant, seeking his instructions as to whether he has to conduct the matter or the appellant wants to engage another advocate. Mr. Shah has also produced a xerox copy of a post card dated 25th March, 2002 addressed to him by the appellant. Mr. Shah submitted that as indicated in that post card...
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 : (2001)1GLR603
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Could it be said that the accused was afforded with an opportunity of effective and efficient hearing and paragon and promising, putative and palliative Legal Aid in a serious and major Criminal trial, wherein, minimum sentence, statutorily prescribed is 10 years and minimum penalty of fine is Rs. 1,00,000 It is the heart and main theme of this Conviction Appeal, on hand.2. In this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-original-accused has assailed the legality and validity of thejudgment and sentence order recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge on 19th September, 1998 in N.D.P.S. Case No. 3 of 1998, whereby, the accused came to be convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act) and atter hearing him on the quantum of sentence and considering the fact that wife of the accused who is suffering from deadly disease lik...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1997Guj121; (1996)2GLR688
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether an illegal transaction or sale in contravention of the provisions of law could be questioned or revoked or can-celled after a lapse of several years is the heart of the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners had purchased the admeasuring 2 acres in block No. 1029/93 of village Dingucha, Tal. Kalol, Mehsana District from Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 byregistered sale deed dated 6-6-68. Since then, according to the case of the petitioners, they are in possession of the said agricultural land and they have spent huge amount for the development and for taking crops every year.3. The respondent No. 1, District Collector, had initiated proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1947 (Act) in the year 1987, i.e. after 19 years for declaring the aforesaid sale transaction as invalid being in violation of the provisions of the Act and show cause notice was issued. Thereafter the petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1974]34STC409(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. The question which has been referred to in this case is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transactions of sale of the groundnuts of the members made by the society by auction are sales liable to tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' 2. The society in question is registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and it was assessed for the period from 1st January, 1960, to 6th June, 1961, to sales tax on its turnover of sales of groundnuts to the tune of Rs. 75,081. As this liability has been upheld even by the Tribunal, the society asked for this reference. At an earlier stage when this matter was taken up, the relevant bye-laws were considered along with the modus operandi of this business of the society. It was pointed by our learned brother A. D. Desai, J., speaking for the Division Bench that the object of the society was to advance loans at cheap rates to the members and to sell on commission their pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1624
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), petitioners, who are accused in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1999 for commission of the offence of murder of one Dr. Sonia Modi, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and facing trial in the said case before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No.15), Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, apprehending that they would not get fair and impartial criminal trial at the hands of the concerned Additional City Sessions Judge, seek transfer of the said Sessions Case pending for hearing on the file of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No.15), Ahmedabad City, which is a part-heard case as oral evidence of eight witnesses has been completed, to any other Court within the District or outside the District within Gujarat.2. The birth of this proceeding has a nexus wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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
Reported in : [2001]124STC162(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. The petitioner-Larsen and Toubro Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a leading engineering concern. It undertakes works contracts of different nature. It entered into a contract with National Dairy Development Board, Anand (respondent No. 3) for setting up automated dairy plant at Banas II Dairy on August 25, 1999 for a total value of Rs. 28,82,05,360 which is now increased, with additional works, to Rs. 29,09,51,966 on the terms and conditions contained in the document of contract.2. During the course of works contract, the petitioner-company submitted its bills periodically for payment to its employer, viz., National Dairy Development Board. The department insisted on deducting 2 per cent on the amounts payable for the works executed under various bills in accordance with the impugned provisions contained in Section 57B of Chapter VA inserted by Gujarat Act No. 15 of 1997 with effect from April 1, 1997 to Gujarat Sales Tax Act,...
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 : [1996]87CompCas705(Guj)
R. Balia, J.1. The company has preferred cross-objections against the finding recorded by the learned single judge [see [1995] 84 Comp Cas 230] that the allotment of shares to NOCIL and Shushrupad Investment Limited out of the rights issue of 1987 was contrary to and in breach of the prohibitory order of injunction issued by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Suits Nos. 3181 and 3182 of 1987, and NOCIL and Shushrupad could not have legitimately participated in respect of those shares at the meeting of the shareholders in pursuance of the directions issued by this court on an application having been made under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act though the court ultimately found that even after excluding participation in respect of such unauthorisedly issued shares, the proposed scheme of amalgamation had got the approval of the requisite majority under Section 391(2).2. Controversy had arisen in the wake of objections raised by the objector-appellant that the company had proposed to i...
Tag this Judgment!