Gujarat Court December 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.
Mohanbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1656
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to indirectly challenge and put to naught the order dated 6-2-1991 of Dy. Conservator of Forest and the judgment and order dated 20th January, 1992 of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991 whereby truck No. GTO 2668 was ordered to be confiscated and the appeal therefrom was dismissed. Petitioner was not a party to the first confiscation proceedings.2. On 12-6-1985, Range Forest Officer had caught the said truck for its involvement in illegally carrying the wood stolen from forest area. After seizure of the truck, the registered owner, respondent No. 4 herein, had approached this Court and obtained interim relief on 26-7-1985 of releasing the truck on executing a bond and furnishing security. Thereafter, the truck is stated to have been sold to the present petitioner on 15-9-1989 and transferred in his name on 16-1-1990. On the other hand, the Dy. Conservator of Forest ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savthanji Khodaji Thakor and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ2486
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.10.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Rural in MAC Petition No. 1745 of 1990 awarding compensation of Rs. 96,469/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization to respondent No. 1 herein (original claimant) on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident.2. On 24.3.1989, the claimant was engaged in the work of processing wheat in the thresher in the field of Merubhai Somabhai Thakore when the thresher was attached with tractor No. GRG-9150 and the tractor was being driven by original opponent No. 1 (respondent No. 2 in this appeal). When the tractor was moving the thresher, the right hand of the claimant was crushed by the thresher. The claimant, therefore, filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal held that the accident was caus...
Hansaben Babulal Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR819]
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates.Rule returnable today. Ms. Patel waives service of rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the petition is heard and disposed of today.2. The petitioner was a part-time Sweeper in the office of the Commissioner of Higher Education under the State Government. Feeling aggrieved by termination of her service, she raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has, by impugned judgment and award dated 24.5.2006, passed in Reference (LCA) No. 123/2005, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, she has preferred the present petition.3. It is admitted that the petitioner was engaged as a part-time Sweeper in the office of the Commissioner of Higher Education' under the State Government. The office of the Commissioner of Higher Education is part of the Government administration discharging sovereign function of the State. The same, therefore, cannot be said...
Samatbhai Punabhai Jhalandra Vs. Mamlatdar and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ195Guj
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.2. The question which arises for the consideration of this Court in the present petition is as to whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has the jurisdiction under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Collector or his delegatee under Section 39A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code or not.3. I have heard Mr. Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP for the State Authorities.4. It appears that the proceedings were initiated by the Mine Supervisor, Geological Department against the petitioner under Section 39A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). As per Section 39A of the Code, the powers are with the Collector, however, as per the communication dated 9.12.2006 received by the learned...
Saraswati Trading Company Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC424; 2007CriLJ895
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. One 'Saraswati Trading Company', through its Manager and Administrator - Patel Dalabhai Sonabhai is before this Courts. In the memo of the revision application said Patel Dalabhai Sonabhai is described as 'applicant (original complainant)'. Prayer made in the revision application is:6.(b) To quash and set aside the order at Annexure-A dated 12/09/2006 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa at Banaskantha in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2003. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa was pleased to allow the appeal against the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 749 of 2001 by the learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate First, Dhahera ('JMFC', for short) dated 01.10.2003, whereby the appellant was held guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', for short).The learned JMFC was pleased to hold that the accused - Chaudhari Govindbhai (Govabhai) Bechardas is guilty of an offence under...
Anilbhai Gajanan Vyas Vs. State of Gujarat and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2012
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, whose land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act along with other lands, has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24th January, 1997 passed by the State Government ( The Under Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar) and communicated to the respondent No. 4 (The Administrator, Asharam Bapu Ashram, Surat) vide communication dated 27.1.1997 by which, the State Government has regularized the unauthorized encroachment made by the respondent No. 4 over the land of the petitioner as well as other agriculturists which was acquired by the State Government for Surat Irrigation Division, Surat under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. A further prayer is also made directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 i.e. the Secretary, Narmada and Water Resource D...
Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: [2007]76SCL83(Guj)
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The Counsel of the respective parties have made joint request for taking up and finally disposing of this group of 17 Criminal Appeals. The appellant is common in all these acquittal appeals. These appeals are arising out of identical orders of acquittal dated 4/12/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Veraval in Criminal Appeals filed by the respective respondents / original accused challenging the orders of their conviction and punishment under Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act 1956, dated 1/1/2004 passed by the learned 3rd Joint JMFC, Veraval, in Criminal Cases filed by the present appellant company as the present respondents / original accused ex-employees of complainant company wrongfully withheld their respective residential quarters allotted to them by the complainant company during their employment. As the fact and law points are common in all these appeals, the Counsels' requests for hearing them together and disposing th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Distributors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR473(Guj)
1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's findings are borne out from the record and whether the same are not perverse, whereby the additions of Rs. 3,71,000 and Rs. 7,000 respectively were deleted.2. To find out whether the answer of the Tribunal is perverse or not, we have to see the reasons given by the Tribunal. For ready reference the order of the Tribunal reads as under:We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. As rightly summarised by the Departmental Representative the points in contrary are fairly similar whether the diary belongs to the assessee or to A.B. Parikh in the personal capacity. To this the contents of the diary would be very such relevant. The diary as could be seen from its contents contains personal transactions of Shri A.B. Parikh and whenever the personal transactions or the assessee firm they are properly reflected in the books of the firm. In our view, the firs...
Sureskumar Makhansing Prajapati Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2666
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. ADMIT. Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives process of admission on behalf of the opponent.2. Appellant - original accused is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge is pleased to convict the appellant for an offence under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and has awarded 5 years imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, 1 month's S.I.3. Mr. J.B. Pardiwala, learned advocate for the appellant successfully pointed out to the Court that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not comply with a mandatory obligation under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (the Act, for short). For ready reference relevant part of the same is reproduced:. the Court shall call for a report from the probation officer and consider the report....4. Mr. ...
Vibhutiben V. Patel Vs. District Primary Education Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1301(GJ)
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 30th December 1996 by which the District Primary Officer, District Panchayat, Valsad, has removed the petitioner from service as Primary Teacher on the ground that when the petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher the petitioner had produced false and fabricated marksheet of Standard X and obtained the appointment by false representation and cheating.2. The petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in District-Panchayat, Valsad in the year 1986. For the purpose of appointment as 'Primary Teacher', the basic qualification required is 'PTC' and in the interview weightage is required to be given to 35% of the marks obtained in SSC and 55% of the marks obtained in PTC. On the basis of the marksheets submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as 'Primary Teacher'. It appear...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »