Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2005Guj164; (2005)1GLR519
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. A common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions and therefore all the petitions are considered together and decided by this common judgement.2. The petitioners herein are consumers of Gujarat Electricity Board. They are High Tension Consumers and they have been charged on the basis of tariff applicable to them as HT consumers.2.1 According to the petitioners, the respondent Board issued exhorbitant supplementary bills to the petitioners being differential amount due to revision of tariff on account of change of classification from HTP-I to HTP-II(A). The petitioners were also informed that although original connection was released under HTP-I category, considering the activities carried out by the petitioners in their units, their units would fall under HTP-II(A) category. It appears that the new tariff was introduced with effect from 10.10.2000 and the special bill has been calculated on the basis of new tariff. Therefore, the petitioners herei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)3GLR2142
Akil Kureshi, J.1. The petitioner who was a judicial officer has by way of the present petition challenged the notification dated 11.12.98 issued by the Government of Gujarat, by which the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date of the notification.2. Brief facts leading to the present petition can be noted at the outset. The petitioner was working as second Joint Civil Judge (SD), Ahmedabad Rural from 10.6.91 to 18.10.92. With effect from 19.10.92, the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural and continued to work on the said post till 25.11.93. For having committed certain misconduct, pending departmental proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 21.1.94. On 6.8.94, a chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner containing in all 12 charges against her. Shri M.C.Patel, the then Additional Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad was appointed as the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR964
ORDER: Delay condoned. Heard. The special leave petitions are dismissed.' (v) Special Civil Application No. 7372 of 1999 was then filed by Halar Utkarsha Samiti against B.O.R.L. by way of Public Interest Litigation challenging the action/proposed action on the part of the respondents allowing setting up a huge pipeline through the declared Marine Sanctuary and a mandamus was sought for setting aside the decision which was about to be taken by the respondent No. 1 to permit B.O.R.L. to lay the pipeline as per the modified Route 2A passing through the reserved forest and Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Kachchh. This Special Civil Application was decided by the Division Bench (Coram: R. K. Abichandani & D. H. Waghela, JJ.) on 10th December, 1999 (page Nos. 48 to 61 of the paper as Annexure-A4 in Special Civil Application No. 1778 of 2000). Paras14. 15, 17 and 19 of this judgment arc reproduced as under : '14. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that there will not be any scop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1984(17)ELT268(Guj); [1973]31STC115(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The assessee, Messrs Hind Engineering Co. is a firm carrying on business in an article known as rubber belting. The said article is marketed by it under two different trade names, namely, 'Hind Rubber Belting' and 'Cooper Rubber Belting'. The article in question is a rubber coated belt used as an accessory in the machinery employed for transmission of power. The assessee sold the articles marketed under the aforesaid two trade names under two separate invoices each dated September 30, 1966. The assessee thereafter made two applications each dated December 22/24, 1966 to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, under Section 52(1)(e) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determination of the question whether any tax was payable in respect of the said two sales and, if so, the rate at which it was payable. The contention of the assessee in the said proceedings was that the articles sold by it were 'Cotton fabrics' within the meaning of Entry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1378; [2001]250ITR641(Guj)
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Special Civil Application No. 6213 of 1986 was filed on 28-1-1986 challenging the proceedings in the Civil Suit No. 1196 of 1986 and the Misc. Application No. 234 of 1986 filed therein in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar including an ex parte injunction order dated 25-11-1986 passed in the aforesaid proceedings. In Special Civil Application No. 6214 of 1986 while challenging the proceedings in Misc. Application No. 236 of 1986 (in Civil Suit No. 1197 of 1986) in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamangar including an ex parte injunction order dated 25-11-1986 passed in these proceedings a further declaration was sought that Civil proceedings cannot be instituted in any civil Court in respect of search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred; a further declaration was sought that the civil Court is not even otherwise competent to entertain any such suit and grant any relief in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)3GLR502
D.H. Waghela, J.1. These petitions are grouped and heard together as they involve the common issue of the validity of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). However, the petitions are required to be divided into three sub-groups viz. the petitions in which show cause notices to appoint nominee directors were issued, where appointment orders of such nominees were already issued, and the petitions filed only on the basis of apprehension of such appointments by the Government.2. The relevant Section 80 of the Act reads as under:'S. 80 Power to appoint Government Nominee:(1) Where the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a society, directly or through another society, or has guaranteed the repayment of the principal of and payment of interest on, debentures issued or loans raised by a society, the State Government shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of such society, have the right to nomi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Guj)266; [2003]259ITR526(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This reference has been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated March 13, 2001, passed by a Division Bench of this court taking the view that the decision of another Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Windsor Foods Ltd : [1999]235ITR249(Guj) , dealing with the question of interplay between the provisions of Section 32A (investment allowance) and those of Section 32A (relating to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), requires reconsideration.2. The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing fertilizers and other products. The assessee entered into a contract for purchasing plant and machineries (the assets) from a Japanese company on deferred credit basis. Though the year of purchase is not clear from the paper book, the assessee was required to make payment in instalments over a period of 12 years (page 203).3. The liability for the instalments towards the cost of the assets for the calendar years 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)4GLR59
ORDER1. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that Special Civil Application No. 942 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner-Workman, and Special Civil Application No. 1424 of 1996 is filed by the Mill-Company. In both these petitions, the order dated 21-10-1994 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad as well as order dated 4-12-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad are under challenge, therefore, both these petitions are heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of both these petitions are as under :- The petitioner-New Shorrock Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Company') is a division of Mafatlal Industries Limited and the respondent-Rameshbhai Atmaram Patel (hereinafter referred to as, 'the workman') was working as Junior Assistant (Sales Section) on a basic pay of more than Rs. 1,000/- besides dearness allowances and other perks. The respondent was issued a chargesheet for various misconducts committed by him for misbehaving with hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1275; (1989)2GLR666(GJ)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Whether an accused person has an absolute right to be released on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (new Code' for short) even after submission of the police report/chargesheet ('chargesheet' for short), if the chargesheet has been submitted after the period prescribed in the said proviso, is the question which we are called upon to answer in this application.2. Petitioners are alleged to have been involved in an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) for committing murder of one Shepha Nagji. It is the prosecution case that on November 17, 1988, at about 5-30 p.m. at village Ugalwan, the petitioners entered the house of the deceased Shepha Nagji and caused him injuries with Dharia and axe. Chakur Nagji, who later on lodged the information at Nota Kuntwada police station relating to the commission of the said offence, was also injured by the petitioners wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]85STC515(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J.1. The applicant-mill is a manufacturer and dealer of goods popularly known as 'bookbinding cloth'. It had applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 62 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the said Act') for determination of the question whether any tax was payable, and if yes, at what rate on the said product. The said application of the applicant was heard by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Enforcement). It was the case of the applicant that the articles manufactured by it is 'cotton fabric' within the meaning of entry 37 in Schedule I to the said Act. According to the applicant the process to which cotton fabric was subjected was as under : 'The grey powerloom cloth is purchased by the applicant, which is dyed and thereafter dried. The cloth dried and starched is again calendered and this calendered cloth is sold as 'bookbinding cloth'.'The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Enforcement) before whom the said application...
Tag this Judgment!