Gujarat Court May 2005 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.
Pravinbhai Purshottamdas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2462
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, learned counsel appearing with Ms. Saita S. Raju for the petitioners; Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-orig.complainant and Ms.N.V. Joshi, ld.APP, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Rule. The formal service of Rule is waived by Mr. P.A. Jadeja on behalf of the respondent-Complainant and Ms.N.V. Joshi, ld.APP, on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 3. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent.3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 21st April, 2005, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the impugned order granting police remand for five days is bad and violative of constitutional guarantee flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.4. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has taken me through the memo of the peti...
Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(102)ECC42
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following substantial reliefs:'[A] That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Final Order No. A-847/WZB/2004/C-III dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure-'K') thereby directing, the CESTAT, the second respondent herein, to hear Appeal No. C/906/99 on merits and render a decision on this appeal on merits of the claim of the petitioner company;[B] That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, holding and declaring that letter/s dated 29.9.1998 and/or 5.1.1999 were appealable order and the appeal before the CESTAT, the second respondent herein, was maintainable against these letter/s, or in the alternative, Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mand...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›