Gujarat Court May 2002 Judgments
Lilabhai Ranabhai Desai and ors. Vs. Pirabhai Valabhai Desai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR712
D.S. Sinha, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. Dhaval Barot, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Ms. Harsha Devani, learned A.G.P., representing respondent No. 4, waive service of Rule. With the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parses, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. Heard Mr. K.S. Jhaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Dhaval Barot, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Ms. Harsha Devani, learned A.G.P., representing respondent No. 4.3. Instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-1-2002, passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Election Petition No. 1 of 2001, underSection 145U. of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), between Lilabhai Ranabhai Desai & others and the Election Officer and Assistant Collector, Deesa & others, whereby the election of the petitioners to ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Nurmamad theim Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ356; (2002)3GLR794
R.R. Tripathi, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhuj (Kutch) in Special Case No. 44 of 1996 dated 30-9-1998, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant in each of these appeals under Sections 22, 23 with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act') and under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offences under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 120B of the I.P.C. While for the offences under Sections 23 and 28 of N.D.P.S. Act and under Section 120B of the I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default simple imprisonment for 2 years. The learned Judge was pleased to order the sentences...
Tag this Judgment!Gulamnabi Rasulbhai Vohra Vs. Deputy Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj426
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 30-6-2000 passed by the Deputy Collector, Nadiad whereby the licence of stamp vendor is cancelled.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding the licence of stamp vendor and bond writer. It is the case of the petitioner that he is holding the licence since 1976. The case of the petitioner is that the licence is required to be renewed every year and for the year 1997, i.e. from 1-1-1997 to 31-12-1997 he had applied for renewal of licence. However, the petitioner has stated that on 8-1-1998 he was communicated by the office of the Deputy Collector that his licence for the period 1-1-1997 to 31-12-1997 is renewed. It is the case of the petitioner that the decision was taken for renewal on 28-8-1997, but however he was communicated about the same on 8-1-1998. The case of the petitioner is that as the licence was not renewed or that since the renewal was not communicat...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rabari Sangrambhai Pujabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC412
K.A. Puj, J.1. This group of appeals arises out of the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur, dated 22-4-1997 in Claim Petitions Nos. 315, 207, 208, 209, 210, 250, 322, 323, 333, 334, all of 1983 and 66 of 1984. Out of the above 11 Claim Petitions, the Insurance Company has preferred 10 Appeals before this Court. The claimant in Claim Petition No. 315 of 1983 being Cleaner no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since all the 10 appeals were filed against the common judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal and since the said appeals are in respect of one accident, and since all the claim petitions have been consolidated with Claim Petition No. 315 of 1983, and since the evidence of all the petitions have been recorded in Claim Petition No. 315/83, all these First Appeals are taken up for hearing simultaneously and they are being disposed of by this common judgment....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›