Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Year: 1999 Page 38 of about 477 results (0.011 seconds)

Apr 16 1999 (HC)

Shaily Engineering Plastics Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority Under Kar Vi ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-16-1999

Reported in : [1999]239ITR90(Guj)

by the court :1. this petition is relating to dispute which arises out of the special scheme enacted by the finance act of 1998 to settle the disputes under the direct tax as well as indirect taxes known as kar vivad samadhan scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'kvss'). 2. the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner which is a company has filed its return of income for asst. yr. 1996-97 on 29th nov., 1996, declaring a total income of rs. 1,19,69,413 on which rs. 55,05,930 was the amount of tax payable. the said amount was not paid by the assessee. on 18th nov., 1997, the second respondent ao intimated to the petitioner under s. 143(1)(a) about making a prima facie adjustment to the income returned by the assessee by making additions of sums of rs. 1,12,12,567 bringing the total taxable income at rs. 2,32,01,977 correspondingly specifying the increased tax liability of rs. 1,65,32,082. the assessee disputed the adjustment made under s. 143(1)(a) by filing appeal on 26th dec., 1997. however, the said appeal was not liable to be admitted for want of compliance with the requirement of sub-s. (4) of s. 249, namely, non-payment of tax payable as per the return of the income. however, no order rejecting the appeal had been made. the assessee before filing appeal had moved an application for rectification also on 22nd dec., 1997, under s. 154 of the it act, before the ao. the ao vide his order dt. 27th july, 1998, partially accepted the application and reduced the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1999 (HC)

B.M. Solanki and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-12-1999

Reported in : (2000)2GLR1429

1. heard learned counsel for the parties. the petitioner challenges the validity of the joint director class i in the commissionerate of gujarat and rural industries recruitment rules 1997 framed by the governor of gujarat in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to art. 309 of the constitution of india and notified on 13th august 1997. he also challenges the rules framed for recruitment of project manager and deputy director class i, namely, project manager and deputy director under the commissionerate of gujarat & rural industries recruitment rules 1997 promulgated on the same date. 2. from the facts disclosed in the petition, it appears that until resolution dated 28th november 1972 was passed, the cottage industries and industrial co-operatives were administered generally under the department of co-operation. however, by the aforesaid resolution, a separate directorate of gujarat industries and industrial co-operation was created and the first director of the cottage industries was manned from co-operation department working in the cadre of joint registrar. until the framing of rules under challenge, the administrative post was filled by from the persons of co-operation department whether by deputation or promotion to the post though the same was not included in the cadre of the co-operation department. in other words, the post of joint director in directorate of cottage industries and industrial co-operatives was ex cadre post not included in the rules governing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1999 (HC)

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Workmen of State Transpor ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-21-1999

Reported in : (1999)IILLJ1363Guj

r. balia, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as mr. rathod who has appeared for the caveator respondent no. 1 representing the four workmen, namely, mukesh karsanbhai vora, tarun kumar j. acharya, dinesh d. vaghela and bakul g. maru. 2. the petition is against the award of the industrial tribunal, gujarat, rajkot dated june 5, 1998. a reference was made to the tribunal at the instance of respondents whether the four workmen out of whom except d. d. vaghela are working on the establishment of the petitioner for more than five years and all the four workmen have completed 240 days service in the calendar year, in these circumstances, whether they are entitled to be made permanent and other benefits attached to such status out of the four workmen, two workmen, namely, t. j. acharya and m. k. vora have worked as wiremen whereas d. d. vaghela and b. g. maru have worked as helper wiremen. the order of reference also speaks that these workmen are qualified for the post. the petitioner-employer, had contested the claim of the workmen to regularisation inter alia on the ground that there are no posts and there is no permanent nature of work available, and the concerned workmen are appointed only casually to discharge casual duties. 3. on enquiry considering the material before it, the tribunal found that looking to the needs of the establishment there is permanent requirement of at least five persons to work as wiremen. against such requirement only two persons .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1999 (HC)

D.S. Rana and ors. Etc. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. and ors., Etc.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-13-1999

Reported in : AIR2000Guj45; (2000)2GLR1036

r.k. abichandani, j.1. this group of petitions raises the question whether a local authority can impose a condition while issuing a trade licence that the trade or its operation which in the opinion of the commissioner, is dangerous to health, life or property or likely to create nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which or the conditions under which the same is or is proposed to be carried on, can be carried on only in an industrial zone, thereby prohibiting such trade or operation to be carried on in other areas including residential areas.2. in this set of three petitions, the lead matter being special civil application no. 2490 of 1999 has been filed by thirty three petitioners against the ahmedabad municipal corporation, deputy health officer of the corporation and the state of gujarat, seeking a direction on the respondents to renew the licences of the petitioners as required under the provisions of the bombay provincial municipal corporation act, 1949 and for quashing and setting aside the impugned notices dated 18th march, 1999 of the nature of annexure 'f' to the petition and the impugned orders dated 31st march, 1999 of the nature at annexure 'i' to the petition. according to the petitioners their trade or business of melting gold and silver is done since several decades under licences given to them under section 376(1) and it does not cause any nuisance or health hazard in the locality in which it is carried on. it is alleged that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1999 (HC)

Sunil Arvindbhai Kapadia Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-16-1999

Reported in : (2000)1GLR72

c.k. buch, j.1. rule. learned counsel mr. b.t. rao waives service of rule for respondents nos. 1 & 3 and learned additional public prosecutor mr. d.n. patel for respondent no. 2 state.2. heard learned counsel for the parties. at the admission stage learned advocates have agreed to dispose of this matter finally, hence the same is taken up for final hearing.3 the petitioner is an authorised person of one m/s. swami nana exchange (p) ltd. having its registered office at nadiad of district kheda. according to the petitioner, his father has expired. his one uncle jitubhai kapadia has also expired. he, his cousin brother (son of jitubhai kapadia) and his uncle chimanbhai harjivandas kapadia are residing in a joint family. the joint family is headed by the petitioner's uncle chimanbhai harjivandas kapadia. according to the petitioner, he, himanshu (son of chitubhai kapadia) and daughtger-in-law of his uncle chimanbhai h. kapadia, smt. alkaben are authorised officers of m/s. swami nana exchange (p) ltd. smt.alkaben wife of gaurangbhai chimanbhai kapadia is the chairperson of this company. according to the petitioner, the petitioner and his cousin brothers and uncle chimanbhai kapadia are residing under a common roof at 10, uttam park society, college road, nadiad.4. the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india and has prayed for the following main reliefs:(a) that the hon.'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ and/or direction to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1999 (HC)

Municipal Corporation of City Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-05-1999

Reported in : (2000)2GLR269

1. the municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad has in this group of petitions sought a declaration that the requirements denoted by the word 'successfully' and by the words 'and so long as it functions successfully' in rule 6 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) cess rules, 1976 are inconsistent with the provisions of section 7 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) cess act, 1977 and therefore inoperative and void. the petitioner corporation has challenged the order dated 31st december, 1985 passed by the appellate authority and the revised assessment order dated 9th january, 1985 which was consequentially made.2. according to the petitioner, the polluting parameters as mentioned in the conditions imposed under the consent granted to the petitioner under section 25 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974 and the maximum permissible limits of ranges allowed as per the consent condition were as under:(1) b.o.d. 20 mg./l.(2) suspended solids 30 mg./l.the legislature with a view to provide adequate funds to the state boards for their effective functioning, enacted the water (prevention and control of pollution) cess act, 1977. under the charging section 3 of the cess act, it was provided that there shall be levied and collected a cess for the purposes of water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974 and utilization thereunder. the levy and collection of cess was made applicable not only to persons carrying on any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1999 (HC)

Lasiben Amtaji Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-11-1999

Reported in : (2000)4GLR596

h.k. rathod, j.1. learned advocate shri a.k.clerk is appearing for the petitioner-workman. learned advocate shri r.h.mehta is appearing for the respondent-oil and natural gas commission ('the commission' for short). the facts of the present case, in short, are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent corporation on 1.6.1969 as a contingent employee and on completion of the 11 years' period of service, the petitioner's services were regularized on the post of khalasi with effect from 6.8.1980. according to the case of the petitioner, in the seniority list of contingent/work charged unskilled employees having completed 240 days of service, the name of the petitioner appears at 240; that there are other persons working in similar posts in the respondent commission as the petitioner namely sarasvashri chhotaji varsanji, popatji madhurji and mangaji ataji who are junior to the petitioner and who are at 241 to 243 in the said seniority list are said to have joined the service as contingent employees on 1.6.69 whereas they were regularized on 3.12.1977, 3.1.1975 and 3.1.1975 respectively. according to the petitioner, though the petitioner was senior to the said three persons on the basis of engagement as contingent employee and is shown to be senior in the seniority list, the action of the respondent authorities in regularizing her only on 6.8.1980 is clearly arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, in breach of the ongc terms of conditions of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1999 (HC)

Maganlal Mepabhai Patel Vs. Competent Authority and Ex Officio Additio ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-20-1999

Reported in : (1999)3GLR2105

y.b. bhatt, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.2. there is no controversy that the present petition challenges certain orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act, 1976.3. there is also no dispute that the state of gujarat adopted the urban land (ceiling & regulation) repeal act, 1999 on 30th march 1999. there cannot be any dispute that the present petition was pending on the date when the repeal act came into force.4. at the present stage i am directly concerned, not with the merits of the petition, i.e. not with the merits of the impugned orders, but as to the applicability of section 4 of the act of 1999. this limited controversy not only goes to the root of the problem, but is also the substantial contention brought before this court in a note filed by the respondents herein.5. section 4 of the act of 1999 reads as under:'4. all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal act pending immediately before the commencement of this act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate:provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11 12 13 and 14 of the principal act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the state government or any person duly authorised by the state government in this behalf or by the competent authority.'on a plain reading of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1999 (HC)

Mohd. Sadiq Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-11-1999

Reported in : 1999CriLJ4043

ordern.n. mathur, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-82 passed by the special judge, jodhpur convicting the accused appellant of offence under section 161,i.p.c. and section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year's r.i. and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo 1 month's s. i. on each count.2. the prosecution case is that on 6-9-76 pw/1 tejaram submitted a written complaint before the addl. superintendent of police (anti corruption), jaipur stating that he is a resident of village dabaria. after the death of his father he wanted to get 62 bigha of land mutated in his name and in the name of his 3 other brothers. he has submitted an application in that regard before the patwari, basroli. he had put the thumb impression thereon. he enquired about the progress in the said matter from the patwari on 4-9-76, on which, he told him that he will required to pay a sum of rs. 100/- as bribe for doing the said work. the patwari also told him that he may pay sum of rs. 50/- on 7-9-76 and rest of the amount later on. he did not disclose the name of the patwari saying that he does not remember the name. it appears that the said application was forwarded to dy. superintendent of police (anti corruption), ajmer for arranging the trap. the complainant pw/1 tejaram submitted the said application before the dy. superintendent of police (anti corruption), ajmer on 9-9-76. as tejaram was required to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1999 (HC)

Ram Chandra Joshi and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-06-1999

Reported in : 2000CriLJ1660; 2000(2)WLC739

orderb.s. chauhan, j.1. all these petitions have been filed against the order of removal of public prosecutors/additional public prosecutors/additional government advocates working in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur and the district courts subordinate to it. as common questions of law are involved, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. the facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases have variance to some extent and, thus, in brief, the facts of each case would be considered separately for disposal of the case, but first legal issues are being examined.2. at this stage it may be mentioned that petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of section 24 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'cr.p.c.') read with the provisions of the rajasthan law and judicial department manual, 1952 (for short, 'the manual') and tenure of some of them had been extended for a definite or indefinite period.3. the main arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners had been that once petitioners had been appointed, they cannot be removed without due process of law; rule 16(1) confers an unfettered and unbriddled power upon the government to remove the duly appointed public prosecutors without assigning any reason; any order, not supported by reasons, is liable to be quashed and, therefore, the impugned orders of removal of petitioners are bad and deserve to be quashed.4. in reply, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //