Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1994Guj206; (1994)2GLR1634
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Bhavnagar on 7th July, 1984 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Ceiling Act' for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal ('the Appellate Authority' for convenience) on 26th May, 1987 inter alia in Appeal No. Bhavnagar-1318 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Competent Authority declared the holding of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling area by 4749.69 square meters.2. The dispute arising in this petition centres round four parcels of land bearing Plots Nos. 865 admeasuring 1071.24 square metres, 886 admeasuring 1003.35 square metres, 888 admeasuring 1449.01 square metres and 1300 measuring 836.13 square metres situated in Bhavnagar ('the disputed lands' for convenience). The aforesaid block of four lands was taken on lease for 99 years by the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1995Guj61; (1994)2GLR1697
ORDERD.G. Karia, J.1. Both these petitions involve common questions of fact and law and as such both the petitions are being disposed of by the common judgment, with the consent and agreement of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.2. In Special Civil Application No. 3424 of 1982, petitioner No. 2, Sarojben Ganpatlal Agrawal, is the proprietor of petitioner No. 1, Ganpati Salt Works. One Vala Jesang of village Padana. Talika Anjar, District Kutch, on his application, was granted a lease in respect of plot No. 3, situated on the sea-shore of Padana village for manufacture, storage and sale of salt and its bye-products by second respondent. The said lease was granted initially for aperiod of five yars from 1-8-1972 to 31-7-1977. An agreement to lease was executed by said Vala Jesang in favour of Government of Gujarat on 2-4-1973, a copy of which is at Annexure 'A' to the petition.3. In Special Civil Applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1933; (1998)1GLR1
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner who is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., for which he was convicted and sentenced on 5th April, 1996 in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1985 by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, has presented this petition, seeking benefit of the order of His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat dated 14th August, 1997, under which remission to the extent indicated therein, was granted to the prisoners convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C., falling in the categories mentioned in the said order.2. When this petition came up for hearing before one of us (Mr. Justice M. S. Parikh), as it appeared that the question, whether the periods of furlough and parole enjoyed by a prisoner can be counted for working out the period of 10 years' imprisonment specified in the said remission order, was of public importance affecting a seizable number of prisoners, the matter was directed to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3251
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is yet another case adding increase of frequency of custodial death noticed by this Court during the last three months. I have also noticed that some Police officers have shown extra enthusiasm and zeal in detecting the crime pertaining to recovery of money on a complaint filed by a private party for offence under Section 406, 420, 467, 471 and 114 of IPC or under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There appears to be a feeling among the complainants to egg the police to use force or violence in order to make recovery or settle civil disputes.2. The present petition has been filed by one Jagruti, a young widow aged 33 years, whose husband, Yogesh Patel admittedly died in police custody on 5-12-1996. It appears that on 14-2-1996, at police station, Gorva, a complaint was filed by one Harshadrai K. Patel of Alembic Chemical Works Ltd., Vadodara. It is stated that the deceased Yogesh Patel, resident of Hubli of Karnataka, was introduced as a pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1998Guj114; (1998)1GLR673
C.K. Thakker, J.1. These three petitions arise under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Common questions of fact and law have been raised in all the petitions. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of all the petitioners by a common judgment. While appreciating the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, relevant facts of first petition, namely, Special Civil Application No. 1961 of 1988 may now be considered.2. Special Civil Application No. 1961 of 1988 is filed by Hirabhai Chhotabhai Patel and ten others for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order (Annexure B) passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer (Land Acquisition) No. 1, GIDC, Ahmedabad on September 30, 1987, being illegal, ultra vires and unlawful and by directing him to make reference to a competent Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case of the petitioners was that their lands were s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Guj)545; [2007]289ITR517(Guj); [2006]152TAXMAN177(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), both at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee :At the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition in respect of first two cheques for Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,50,000, respectively ?'At the instance of Revenue (sic-Assessee):'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition in respect of last two cheques for Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 1,25,000, respectively ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's contention that the amount could be taxed if at all only in asst. yr. 1975-76 on financial year basis as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act?'2. The assessment year is 1976-77 and the relevant accounting period is Samv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR82
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 1-7-1999 and 14-10-1999 passed by the learned Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN. A.S. 3 of 1999 and Restoration Application No. TEN. D.S. 8 of 1999 respectively.2. This Court has issued notice on 21-6-2000 and petition was admitted on 18-10-2000. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared and affidavit-in-reply is filed by Dy. Collector, Olpad, Surat on 30-10-2000. Despite service of notice and rule nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner's grand-father, namely, Shri Premabhai Dhanabhai was the tenant over the land bearing Survey No. 263 admeasuring 2 acres and 16 gunthas situated in Orma. By virtue of will executed by the said Premabhai Dhan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. In the above-mentioned group of cases, Special Criminal Application No. 445/2005 and Special Criminal Application were argued as lead matters. It would therefore, be useful to note in brief the background leading to the said petitions. There are other connected and related proceedings also, to which reference will be made at a slightly later stage.2. Special Criminal Application No. 445/2005 has been filed by one Bhanubhai Ratilal Parmar stating inter-alia that his younger brother Vinubhai Ratilal Parmar is dealing in land on commission basis. In the course of the business, he had come in contact with various Government officials including the police officers. He came in contact with one R.M. Solanki, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ATS, Ahmedabad who was interested in purchasing land. Some disputes arose between Shri R.M. Solanki and Vinubhai Ratilal Parmar. Shri R.M. Solanki had threatened Vinubhai Ratilal Parmar with dire consequences. He is a highly placed police officer and is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1188
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The main theme and the hub of the entire petitionis referable to judicial scrutiny, determination andadjudication of an alleged disparity in the pay-scales oftwo classes of teaching and non-teaching persons employedin Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools aidedby the Government in the State of Gujarat challenging thescheme evolved and designed on the basis of grant-in-aidpolicy for Private Schools and emanated from theGovernment Resolution dated 02-07-1999. By virtue of theimpugned scheme under the Resolution dated 02-07-1999 ofthe State Government, the appellants (hereinafterreferred to as 'original-petitioners') have been inemployment in various Private Aided Secondary and HigherSecondary Schools as Shikshan Sahayaks (EducationAssistants), Vahivati Sahayaks (AdministrativeAssistants) and Sathi Sahayaks (Co-assistants) and theentire linchpin of the petition, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, is challenged against scheme onlyfor parity in pay-sca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]216ITR415(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company, having its registered office at Baroda. Up to the assessment year 1987-88, the period of previous year (accounting year) of the petitioner was from October 1 of a year to September 30 of the next year. The petitioner was submitting income-tax returns accordingly and it was assessed on the basis of the said previous year. It is the contention of the petitioner that somewhere after March 31, 1988, either in May, 1988, or in June, 1988, a circular was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('the C.B.D.T.' for short), permitting the assessees to change the period of their accounting year for the assessment year 1988-89, up to March 31, 1988. The circular was issued because of an amendment to section 3 of the income-tax Act. As per the amended provisions of sub-section (2), 'previous year', in relation to the assessment year, commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, means the period which begins with the date immediately foll...
Tag this Judgment!