Gujarat Court March 2001 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Babubhai K. Salat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ372
1. This is an acquittal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and acquittal order dated 16.9.1985 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No.61/84, under which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the present respondent of offences punishable under sections 435 and 436 of Indian Penal Code. The facts may be stated in brief as follows:2. On 9.5.1984, the original informant Bai Panchu, widow of Vishnubhai Ramjibhai, who was residing in a small hut in the outskirts of Palanpur in Banaskantha district, along with her companion Sangita, had gone for shopping. Her daughter, Lilaben aged 8 was present at the hut. It is alleged against the present respondent that the respondent had set fire on the said hut by throwing burning match stick and, therefore, the hut was burnt. One rickshaw driver informed the informant Bai Panchu and Sangita in the market about the incident. Therefore, they returned t...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshbhai H. Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: (2001)GLR796
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner herein has a petrol-diesel outlet at GIDC, Odhav, Ahmedabad, and has licence to do business as a retailer of these products issued by the licensing authority. On 6th May 1998 an inspection/spot check was carried out at the petrol pump of the petitioner wherein certain irregularities were noticed and further action taken. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Three averments were made (1) There was a short supply of 43 ml. for every 5 litres of petrol (on an average); (2) the management of the petrol-diesel outlet was conducted by some person other than the licensee; and (3) the sample of the petrol drawn was found, on a laboratory analysis, not to be in conformity with the prescribed standards.2. The petitioner submitted his written explanation to the show cause notice, and after considering the said reply and the materials placed on record by the petitioner in support of his defence, the Deputy Director of Civil Supplies, namely respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal M. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Guj311; (2001)3GLR2484
Kundan Singh, J. Rule. Ms. B. R. Gajjar appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. U. M. Panchal also appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10-2-2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 at Annexure-A and for direction to the respondent No. 3 to make correction of the Entry No. 7434 dated 19-5-1997 by correcting the name from 'Hemali' to 'Heena'. 3. The child was born to the petitioner on 13-5-1997 and the application was given on 2-7-1997 by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 for entering the name of the child of the petitioner in the Birth Register. Accordingly, the name of the child was mentioned as 'Hemali' in the Birth and Death Register vide Entry No. 7434 dated 19-5-1997. When the petitioner required birth certificate for filing it in the educational institution at that time the mistake was detected in respect of name of ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Bhikhabhai Kalaji Thakore
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)GLR67
S.K. Keshote, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Gujarat and District Education Officer, Ahmedabad, challenges the order dated 22-11-1991 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No.165/91 wherein the application was partly allowed and the respondent-teacher was declared to be entitled to opt for the pension scheme with certain conditions and further allowed him to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1-6-1985 and the Department has been directed to sanction his voluntary retirement application, if he applied for the same. Prayer has also been made for quashing and setting aside of the order aforesaid of the Tribunal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order impugned in this special civil application raised the following contentions:(a) Whether Secondary Education Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass any Order against and/or direct the petitioners nam...
Tag this Judgment!idrish Yakub Mamji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3236
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This petition can only be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mentioning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the title of the petition is wholly misplaced. This petition is against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara and here this can only be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing No.GTF 277. It was seized as therein teak wood was loaded. It was kept at Nasvadi Depot of the Forest Department. Confiscation proceedings of the truck were started and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chhota Udepur under its order dated 19-5-1997 ordered for confiscation of the truck. That order has been challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge by filing an appeal and the appeal was partly allowed and the order of confiscation of the truck passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chhota Udepur was substituted by penalty of Rs.70,000/-. the ...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Desai Vs. Y.N. Parekh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3260
S.K. Keshote, J.1. In all these three matters, not only the parties are common but identical order is passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Ahmedabad and therein the facts and questions of law raised are common. In fact, three separate complaints have been filed by the Insurance Inspector, E.S.I. Corporation, Ahmedabad and that is how three separate petitions are there. In view of these facts, these matters are taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common order. The facts of the case and the grounds of challenge to the order are being taken up from special criminal application No.940/98.2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with sections 397 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed below Ex.2 in Criminal Case No.2611/95 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Ahmedabad dated 9-7-1998. Further prayer has b...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Dwarkadas K. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2488
D.P. Buch, J.1. The petitioners above-named have preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat at Annexure 'D' to the petition dated 22-3-1990 and that of the Dy. Collector, Mehsana Annexure 'B' dated 30-6-1982 and to confirm the order of the Collector annexed at Annexure 'C' dated 20-9-1989. The facts may be briefly dated as follows :2. The matter relates to village Vihar of Vijapur Taluka in Mehsana District. It seems that under the scheme of the respondent-State, some plots of the said village were required to be allotted to the persons eligible to get them under the said scheme on public auction. The records also show that public auction was held accordingly and after completion of the period of one month, the said auction was confirmed on 1-4-1981 under Order at Annexure ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwinbhai C. Sheth Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR54
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Bombay Rent Act' for short) at the instance of the original plaintiff-landlord, who sued the respondent-defendant-tenant for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. The landlord sued for a decree of eviction on two grounds. The first ground was that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own requirements. Secondly, the eviction was sought on the ground of non-user of the rented premises by the tenant for a continuous period of six months immediately prior to the date of the suit i.e. under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act. 3. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the landlord on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, but found on the facts and evidence on record that the landlord had established non-user of the rented premises on the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Karansinh Fatehsinh Gohil Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3687
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Police Sub-Inspector, Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad, has challenged in this petition an order dated 17.3.1989 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City whereby the petitioner was suspended as he was involved in a serious crime punishable under sections 161, 165A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 read with section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act.2. From the order Annexure 'A' it appears that with A.C.B Police Station C.R. No. 25 of 1988 was lodged by Valjibhai Odharbhai Rebari, aged about 67 years. A copy of the First Information Report is produced at Annexure 'C'. As a complaint for a serious offence was pending, the Commissioner of Police made an order of suspension which according to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, is passed in an arbitrary manner, and the same is also a malafide order.3. Reading the complaint Annexure 'C' it appears that the petitioner was worki...
Tag this Judgment!Subodhchandra Gulabbhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2134
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Petitioners herein i.e. petitioner No. 1 being the husband and petitioner No. 2 being the wife have filed this Special Civil Application through their constituted Attorney Shri Tulsidas Shamjibhai Patel with the prayers as under :-'(A) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 1 to pass an appropriate order to re-grant the land and hand over the possession of the open land of 14,000 sq.mts. of land in Survey No. 19 and 36,000 sq.mts. of open land in Survey Nos. 20 & 21 in the sim of village Majura, Taluka Chorasi, District Surat as shown in to the map at Ann. 'A' to the petition marked with red boundary to the present petitioners on such terms and condition that may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court. (B) Any other writ, order or direction that may be considered necessary in the interest of justice may be issued. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »