Gujarat Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Amratbhai Lilabhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2765; (2002)3GLR145
D.P. Buch, J.1. This is a Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code'), challenging the judgment and order dated 7-1-2002 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1999 under which the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and conviction order dated 18-1-1999 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No. 1806 of 1997 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the I.P.C. as well as for the offences punishable under Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was directed to suffer further S.I. for 15 days in case the fine was not paid. For die offence punishable...
Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. Vs. Vireshchand Chandrakant Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj379
B.C. Patel, J.1. Against the judgment and order rendered in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 643 of 1995 by the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, on 23rd November, 1998, the assessee -- the original applicant before the Small Cause Court and also the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Corporation'), who was original opponent before the Small Cause Court have preferred these appeals.2. The facts relevant for deciding the disputes required to be narrated are as under.3. The assessee is the owner as well as occupant of the premises admeasuring 16.30 sq, mts, which was purchased on payment of Rs. 62,000/-. The assessee is in possession of the premises since 20-5-93. The premises is situated at Sattar Taluka Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.4. The Corporation commenced assessment procedure for the year 1993-94 and Gross Rateable Value (hereafter to be referred to as 'the GRV') of the premises was fixed at Rs. 25,862/-. Against the same, the assessee filed object...
Mohanlal K. Patel and anr. Vs. Ukkabhai L. Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR574
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The present Special Civil Application is preferred against the order, dated 15-7-1986 passed by the State Government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction whereby the order of the District Collector dated 30-10-1986 so far as it relates to setting aside the order for removing the encroachment is quashed.2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Deputy Collector alleging that the petitioner herein has made encroachment over the lands belonging to him admeasuring 55 sq. mtrs., and therefore, he requested the Deputy Collector to get the land vacated and give the possession to him. The Deputy Collector ultimately after hearing both the sides passed an order on 15-7-1986 whereby he demarcated the boundaries and he further directed the present petitioner to vacate the said land. The present petitioner preferred appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector before the District Collector under Section 203 of the Bom...
Pravinbhai Jagjivandas Mehta Vs. Officine Lovato S.P.A.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC161(Guj)
ORDER BELOW APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION 1. These applications are filed by plaintiff Mr. Pravinbhai J Mehta in five suits filed by him against defendant No. 1 Officine Lovato S.P.A. (the first defendant) under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (the Act). Since in all the five suits the parties are the same and common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of automobile spares. The plaintiff also claims to have invented and designed five specific designs in certain parts which are used for converting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) as fuel for running automobiles. The details about the registration numbers, dates of application and the dates of registration are set out in a chart, which is annexed to this order and is to be treated as a part of this order.3. The plaintiff filed t...
Gabhabhai Kanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4040; (2002)4GLR3165
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. Both these appeals arise from the judgmentdelivered by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Amreli dated30/9/1992 in Sessions Case No. 38/1991. By saidjudgment original accused no. 1 - Gala Kana has beenconvicted for an offence u/S. 302 of the Indian PenalCode (for short 'IPC') and he has been sentenced tosuffer imprisonment for life. He has also been convictedfor offence u/S. 333 of the IPC for which no separatesentence has been imposed. Moreover, he has beenconvicted for the offence u/S. 135 of the Bombay PoliceAct and has been sentenced to suffer RI for three months.The substantive sentences are ordered to runconcurrently. He has, therefore, approached this Courtby filing Criminal Appeal No. 1200 of 1992.1.1. Original accused no.2 - Mitha Kanabhai has beenconvicted for offences u/Ss. 324 and 332 of the IPC readwith section 109 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RIfor one year. However, he has been granted benefit underthe Probation of Offenders Act on the condition of givin...
Rakesh Shivbhagwan Agrawala Vs. Talati-cum-mantri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR2929
Jayant Patel, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order passed by all the lower authorities, namely, Deputy Collector, Dist. Collector and the State Government in exercise of their powers under Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.2. The short facts of the case are that one entry was mutated being Entry No. 2607 dated 27.5.1983. After the mutation of the said entry the same was certified on 30.6.1983. Thereafter, suomotu powers were exercised and as per the notice dated 1.8.84 the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the entry should not be cancelled. The main ground of the notice was that no permission under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is obtained. Another ground was that the sale deed is not produced. The third ground was that notice under section 135D of the Act is not served upon the person concerned and the fourth ground was that the land is belonging to Devastnam and the sale is shown to have b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›