Gujarat Court February 2007 Judgments
Bapalal J. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1374
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. DG Chauhan for the petitioner and MR. LB Dabhi, learned AGP for respondents.2. According to the case of the petitioner, case of the petitioner is governed by the judgment and order of this Court dated 20.7.2001 given in Special Civil Application No. 10532 of 1998 wherein petitioner was also one of the petitioner. According to the case of the petitioner, on the basis of the oral assurance given by the respondent auhtority, petitioner had earlier withdrawn his name from the said petition and said petition came to be disposed of qua petitioner and thereafter, respondents are not considering case of petitioner for the benefit at par to the other petitioners in SCA No. 10532 of 1998 on the basis of judgment and order of this Court dated 20.7.2001 though petitioner is similarly situated employee. According to the petitioner, respondents are required to consider case of the petitioner for posting for the post of PSI. Petitioner had worked as unarme...
Tag this Judgment!inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Inductotherm India) Vs. James ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Guj)195
1. In these two Petitions along with the Civil Application, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings in consequence of the notices issued under Section 263 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax for revision of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and by the Assessing Officer for reopening the same assessment order. The relevant Assessment Year is 2001-02.2. The petitioner in both these petitions prayed to quash and set aside the notices dated 30.03.2006 and 19.07.2006 issued under Section 148 and 142(1) of the Act and notices dated 17.01.2005 and 17.02.2005 issued under Section 263 of the Act.3. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 10.03.2004. For reopening of this assessment, notice under Section 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and notice under Section 263 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax for revision of the assessment order passed by the Assess...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanbhai Ramsinhbhai Parmar Vs. Mamlatdar (Rural), Anand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1789
Jayant Patel, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the Notice dated 8-2-2006 issued by the Mamlatdar for recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,40,870/- from the petitioner under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. Heard Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chhaya, learned A.G.P. for the State authorities-respondents No. 1 to 4 and for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, though served, they have chosen not to appear. I have also heard Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the newly added respondent No. 7, D.D.O., Anand. All learned Advocates are heard for final disposal.3. It appears that since certain observations were made by this Court in its order dated 25-3-2005 in Spl.C.A. No. 10881 of 2004 with Civil Application No. 8256 of 2004 for vacating of the interim relief while examining the legality and validity of the order of removal under Section 57 of Gujarat Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the District Development Officer communicated to the Mamla...
Tag this Judgment!Manishbhai Bharatbhai Shah Vs. the State of Gujarat and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR392
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Rule in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10043 of 2006 and in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3815 of 2005. Shri. M.A. Patel learned APP for the opponent No. 1 State and Shri. V.B. Patel learned Counsel for the opponents No. 2 to 5 waived service of rule. The rule was fixed forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsels of the respective parties.2. The applicant / original complainant has filed the Criminal Misc. Application No. 10617 of 2006 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay occurred in preferring Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10043 of 2006 seeking restoration of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3815 of 2005 on the file as it stood dismissed for default. This Court [Coram: S.R. Brahmbhatt, J] had issued rule in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10617 of 2006 on 3/11/2006, which was made returnable on 17/11/2006. Shri. V.B. Patel, learned Counsel appeared for the private respondents/ original accused No. 2 to 5. He op...
Tag this Judgment!Jayeshkumar Kantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2254
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. These two Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2002 rendered in Sessions Case No. 296 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, by which the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002 (A-1) is convicted for commission of the offences under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for further period of two years for commission of the offence under Section 489A IPC, RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for further period of one year for commission of the offence under Section 489B IPC, RI for five years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for further period of one year for commission of the offence ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Vasavda and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2372
ORDERAt this stage, Shri K.M.Patel, learned advocate appearing for Shri A.K.Patel - respondent No. 3 herein requests to grant the stay of further implementation and operation of the present judgment and order for a further period of 4 weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 3 has already enjoyed the fruits of illegality at the cost of others and more particularly, in view of the fact and it was submitted that the respondent No. 3 is to retire in the month of June or July 2007, granting of stay of further implementation and operation of the present judgment and order would be to give further premium to the illegality and continue the illegality in favour of the respondent No. 3, as if the present judgment and order is stayed, in that case, the respondent No. 3 would be continued on the post which he is not entitled to and after retirement it can be said that now nothing further is required to be done. Under the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Dineshkumar G. Chavda and 8 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1080]
ORDERAt this stage, Shri Supehia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners prays to continue the interim relief granted earlier for a period of 2 weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim relief granted earlier is directed to be continued till 9th March, 2007. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay A. Mehta Vs. Anar Sanjay Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2461
ORDER:42. In view of the above, the following conclusion is available:42.1 This Court desires to exercise the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. On the ground that there is an apparent on the face of the record and there is an obvious mistake. The prayer for delay in filing the application has been granted. Sufficient grounds for exercising the power of review has been set out. Though this Court has passed interim order on 29.12.2006 that the opponent has to stay in her house, the said order will continue in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Not only that it will be open for son Nishant to visit the house of the applicant in connection with his study. However, this Court requests the opponent wife to consider the alternative accommodation which has been offered by the applicant. It may be noted that this Court passed the order with a very heavy heart directing the opponent wife to stay away from the matrimonial home. However, in view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vipulbhai Mansingbhai Chaudhry, Chairman Vs. Gc Murmu or His Successor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR2204
D.A. Mehta, J.1. As the pleadings are complete, considering the issue involved, the petition has been heard finally. RULE. The learned advocates appearing for the respondents are directed to waive service of rule.2. This petition has been preferred challenging order dated 25.01.2007 (ANNEXURE-A) and following reliefs have been prayed for:9. On the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner prays to Your Lordships that;A. be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 25.1.2007 at Annexure-A to the petition;B. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to stay further operation, execution and implementation of the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 25.1.2007 at Annexure-A to the petition;C. Be pleased to award the cost of this petition;D. Such other and further relief that...
Tag this Judgment!Vaghri Dsola Vama Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2648
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Criminal Case No. 32 of 1993 (Atrocity) dated 7-1-1995.2. Mr. D. K. Desai, learned Advocate for the appellants states that appellant No. 2-Vaghri Puniben Dolabhai has expired, therefore, the appeal has abated qua appellant No. 2.3. Mr. Desai, learned Advocate for the appellants raised a pure question of law, that 'in the present case, no cognizance could have been taken by the Special Court in view of the provisions of Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Code', for short)'. Section 193 of the Code reads as under:Cognizance of offences by Court of Sessions:- Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time-being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.4. Learned A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »