Gujarat Court November 2006 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laljibhai Hamirbhai and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ528; (2007)1GLR633
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as the act], against the judgment and award made by MACT [Main], Ahmedabad. Rural at Narol in MAC Application No. 520 of 1981 dated 16th April, 1983. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the finding given by the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was 100% negligent while driving his vehicle and as a result of the same, he caused accident in question. The Tribunal has therefore held the insured as well as the appellant vicariously liable to satisfy the entire award.2. Respondent No. 1, who is hereinafter referred to as the claimant, filed MAC Application No. 520 of 1981 to recover the compensation of Rs. 50,000=00 for the bodily injury and consequential disability suffered by him. According to the claimant, on 30th July, 1980 he was serving as a cleaner and was attached to truck bearing registratio...
State of Gujarat Vs. Hasmukhbhai Mangalbhai Patel, Owner of Haroliay D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ888
ORDERS.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The applicant State of Gujarat has preferred this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 25 days caused in preferring the Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2005 filed under Section 378(1)(B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'the Code for short) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.10.2004, passed by the learned JMFC, Vijapur in Criminal Case No. 1551 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charges of commission of offence under Section 2(1)(a), 7(1), 7(5) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. Heard learned APP Shri Patel for the applicant State of Gujarat. The reasons mentioned for delay of 25 days appear to be genuine and the delay, ordinarily would have been condoned. However, looking to the decision impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2005 and the records and papers pertaining to Crim...
Kayyumbhai Yusufbhai Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1796
C.K. Buch, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad passed in Special Criminal Case No. 13 of 1989 on 7th November, 1989. The appellant came to be tried for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, so also, he was found guilty for violating the provision of Kerosene (Restriction on Use) Order, 1966 by the trial Court and came to be convicted therefor. The learned trial Judge after recording conviction and after hearing the accused on quantum of punishment, sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 (three) months.2. The facts of the case can be stated thus:3. The complainant was discharging his duty as Traffic Police Sub Inspector at S.T. Circle between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. At that time, some other Police Officers, so also, the expert persons of Forensic Science Laboratory were also present with him. It is the case of the p...
Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Vs. Rathod Arunbhai Baldevbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR820]
R.M. Doshit, J.1. The petitioner, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Company'); a successor to the Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Board'), has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and award dated 5.5.2005 passed by the learned Labour Judge, Ahmedabad in Reference (ICA) No. 1926 of 1993. By impugned award, the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the workman') has been ordered to be reinstated in service on the same post and on the same terms and conditions without any other service benefits or the wages.At the outset, Mr. Dave has sought permission of the Court to place on record and rely upon two documents viz., the order of appointment of the workman as an apprentice and the order relieving him on completion of the period of apprenticeship. Mr. Dave has candidly admitted that though the said documents were in possession of the Board, they were...
Haripara Gamat Dhor Charan Trust, Through Trustees, Rameshbhai D. Pata ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR886
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri M.I. Hava, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Shri N.D. Gohil, learned A.G.P., for the State. Heard.2. Present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereunder the petitioner claiming to be a public charitable trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, proposes to challenge the order passed by the Competent Authority/Agricultural Lands Tribunal, order passed by the appellate authority and the Revenue Tribunal in revision.3. Short facts necessary for disposal of the present matter are that the petitioner filed a return before the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. At the time of hearing, it was observed that the petitioner was entitled to 27 Acres of land while it was holding more than 105 Acres, excess land was declared surplus. The matter was taken in appeal and the matter was remanded back. It was thereafter held by the Competent Authority that the pe...
Govind Murji Patel (Kerai) and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 5 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR671
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat had moved the proposal for disposal of the land by auction to Town Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'TDO') and the said land as per the petitioners was forming part of Gamtal/village site for which the permission came to be granted for such purpose by TDO on 26.3.1984. Thereafter, the auction was held on 22.10.1984 and the petitioners participated at the auction and the offer of the petitioners was accepted. On 28.2.1985, the order came to be passed by the TDO confirming the sale and the land admeasuring 400.31 sq. mtrs was given to the petitioner No. 1 on various conditions as mentioned in the order. In the same manner, the land admeasuring 382.52 sq. mtrs by another order came to be granted by confirming the sale on 28.5.1985 in favour of Vinod Murji (Kerai), petitioner No. 2. As per the petitioners, after the possession of the land was handed over, the adjacent land holder, Smt...
Dhall Enterprised and Engineers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Guj)729
Y.R. Meena, Act.C.J.1. Following questions are referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the lower authorities disallowing the bad debts in case of (1) M/s. Neo Mar Ltd. Of Rs. 81,529/- and (2) M/s. Modern Woolen Mills Ltd. Of Rs. 21,463/- inspite of the fact that under provisions of Section 36 of the I.T. Act, 1961 there is no requirement for determining the basis for which the payment have not been made by the debtors to the assessee?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1005105/- being the sale consideration of spare parts supplied to party in Poland could not be considered as export turnover within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the I.T. Act, 1961?The main issue raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in the first question is that 'once the assessee debited the ...
Gatorbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1539
C.K. Buch, J.1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-orig. accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who has been held guilty by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, vide his judgment and order dated 07th March, 1990 for the offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). At the conclusion of the trial of Sessions Case No. 2 of 1987, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only); in default of payment of amount of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also held guilty for the charge punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and for the same, he is asked to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. As per the operative part of the order under challenge, the substantive sentence i...
Vishal Nilesh Mandlewala Vs. Justice R.J. Shah (Retd.) Admission Commi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1764
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred to challenge the order made by respondent No. 1-committee refusing to grant approval to the admission of the petitioner given by respondent No. 2-college, with a further prayer to command the respondent No. 1-Admission Committee to approve the admission of the petitioner in the category of Non-Resident Indians (N.R.Is.) at Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education and Research, Surat, (Institute) respondent No. 2 herein.2. The facts stated in Paragraph No. 2 of the petition read as under:The petitioner states and submits the petitioner is the son of Nilesh Vinodchandra Mandlewala. However, Kirit V. Mandlewala is appointed as his guardian by the County Court of Marion County Superior Court in the State of Indiana, United State of America. Copy of the letter of guardianship issued by the County Court is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A to this petition.It is the say of the petitioner that after having cleared the 12th Stand...
Abdul Razak Haji Gulambhai Qureshi Vs. Johrabibi Haji Kalubhai Qureshi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: II(2008)DMC341
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner-husband has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against his divorced wife and her daughter, since he was aggrieved by the order of the learned J.M.F.C., Dabhoi awarding Rs. 200/- per month by way of maintenance to the daughter, and that order was upheld in revision.2. The respondents had claimed maintenance from the petitioner under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of trial it was found and recorded as a finding of fact by the Trial Court that the petitioner had no access to the respondent - wife when the daughter was conceived. However, in view of the fact that the wife was, at the relevant time, allowed to live in the family of the petitioner and was divorced on 20.6.1987 after about two years of knowledge and even celebration of conception of a child by the wife, the daughter was ordered to be paid Rs. 200 by way of maintenance. The Revision Application of the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »