Gujarat Court February 2007 Judgments
Tribhovandas A. Singhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1720
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is holding the agricultural land bearing Survey No.138 was served with the notice by the DDO dated 14.12.1993, whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why the maximum fine should not be imposed for un-authorised excavation of morum from the agricultural land and thereby consequential breach of the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 4.1.1994 and contended, inter alia, that they are having two quarries for salt in the nearby area and, therefore, for laying down morum on the road for those factory of the salt, the morum was used. It was also stated that the petitioner has also not engaged in any construction activity or construction of dam. If anybody else has excavated morum from the agricultural land they were not aware of that. The District Collector ultimately on 25.5.1994 passed the order, observ...
Tag this Judgment!Kusumben Vipinchandra Shah and anr. Vs. Arvindbhai Narmadashankar Rava ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1335; AIR2007Guj121
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.2.2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baroda in MAC Petition No. 691 of 1995 in so far as the Tribunal after having determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 3,15,000/- has made the award for only Rs. 1,26,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.2. The appellants are the parents of one Sanjiv, a young qualified engineer who died at the age of 24 years in a motor vehicle accident between a jeep belonging to the Gujarat Electricity Board where the deceased was employed as an Electrical Engineer and a truck. The jeep belonging to the Gujarat Electricity Board and registered in the name of its Executive Engineer (Transmission) was insured by respondent No. 3- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The parents of the deceased filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. Respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!ind Bank Merchant Banking Services Ltd. Vs. Orient Resorts (India) Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas15(Guj); [2009]91SCL302(Guj)
M.R. Shah, J.1. This company petition is filed by the petitioner, Ind-Bank Merchant Banking Services Ltd., to wind up the respondent-company, M/s. Orient Resorts (India) P. Ltd., under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and to appoint the official liquidator.2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner-bank granted hire purchase facility to the respondent-company for Rs. 54,50,000 for a period of 6 years for taking on hire various machineries. That against the said hire purchase facility the respondent-company has signed and executed hire purchase agreements dated October 24, 1997. The representative of the respondent-company also in security of the aforesaid hire purchase facility signed and executed a demand promissory note of Rs. 92,20,092 in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said company has on October 25, 1997, deposited with the petitioner title deeds of its property to secure due payment against the hire purchase facility gra...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Amrutbhai Somabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2668
C.K. Buch, J.1. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment and order dated 12th January, 1993 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana, in Essential Commodity Case No. 12 of 1988 whereby the appellants-accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and under Section 3 of the Essential Commodity Act and were sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, to undergo seven days imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1993 is filed by the Pundhra Khedut Group Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd., appellant No. 1-original accused No. 1, appellant No. 2-original accused No. 2, Arvindkumar Jibhaidas Patel and appellant No. 3-original accused No. 3, Dahyabhai Jesingdas Patel. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment and order based on same set of evidence, oral as well as documentary, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Manish C. Dave Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)475; (2008)1GLR239
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. Common questions of fact and law arise in the above petitions, and therefore, they are disposed of by the present common judgment.The petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint Nos. 1677 of 2006, 1558, 7210, 6534, 6535 of 2005, Criminal Case Nos. 4762, 42, 1707, 1216, 1136, 4656, 1689 of 2006 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad.2. The petitioners are Radiologists possessing requisite qualification and doing practice in Ahmedabad. The petitioners, for the purpose of diagnosis, use Sonography machine in their premises. The competent authority carried out inspection at the respective places and allegedly found certain irregularities. During the diagnosis the petitioners are required to fill up certain forms. The allegation in substance is that certain details were not provided in the proforma. The concerned authority has, therefore, filed complaints against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences puni...
Tag this Judgment!Parbatsang Gulabsang Gadhvi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR1937
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that since the petitioners were holding agricultural land as per the Mamlatdar and since the excess land was there, the proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and vide order dated 26.2.1982, Mamlatdar found that there was no excess land since the petitioners would be entitled to two units and, therefore, proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, the State Government carried the matter in revision under Section 37 of the Act and in the said proceedings the Assistant Collector found that the petitioners would be entitled to only one unit and the land admeasuring 16 acres and 34 gunthas was declared as excess land. It appears that thereafter one Premjibhai Laljibhai moved an application to the Dy. Collector contending, inter lia, that the land admeasuring 8 acres and 12 gunthas was already purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 27.5.1968 and, therefore, the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Pramjibhai Rupabhai Chalsaniya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR2155
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. By filing instant appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short, the appellant ('the accused' for short) challenges the correctness of the judgment and order dated 7.12.1999 rendered in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1994 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot District, Rajkot.By the impugned judgment and order, the accused who was charged for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), on the accusation that on 17.9.1993 he took the prosecutrix, Dinaben Mansukhbhai Parmar, at Shreyas Guest House and after giving some stupefying substance in the snacks, ravished her and thereafter again on 24.9.1993 at 2 P.M., he committed rape on her in her house, was held guilty for the same and, therefore, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine,...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Bhagat and ors. Vs. Bhagat Marketing Corp. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)1GLR686; LC2007(1)269; 2007(35)PTC571(Guj)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this appeal under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellants, who are the original defendants of Civil Suit No. 2063/2006, which is filed before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad have challenged the order passed by learned trial Judge below interim injunction application, by which learned trial Judge has allowed interim injunction application submitted by the original plaintiffs and granted injunction as prayed for.2. Facts leading to the controversy are as under:3. Respondents herein are the original plaintiffs of the aforesaid suit, which is filed for declaration and permanent injunction. By filing aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs have prayed that it may be declared that the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers and distributors have no right directly or indirectly to adopt the trade mark 536230 and 668188 and/or use the trade name 'BHAGAT' or 'R.N.Bhagat' or 'N.S. Bhagat' or any other mark, name, logo, trading style, corporate name similar o...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhi Mulubhai Modhvadia Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR1865
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to hand over the investigation of complaint being C.R. No. I 170 of 2005 registered with Kamalbag Police Station, Porbandar to Central Bureau of Investigation.2. The petitioner is widow of deceased Mulubhai Gigabhai Modhvadia.The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was in the business of mining and trading of lime stone. Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria, the respondent No. 3 herein, who is an ex-Minister, is also carrying on the same business and therefore there was stiff competition between them. According to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner was murdered on 16.11.2005 at the behest of respondent No. 3. It is alleged that in past on many occasions, there was threat on the part of respondent No. 3 to the husband of the petitioner, which fact was disclosed to the petitioner.2.1 In the first information report also son of the petitioner stated that the murder of his father was at the instance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshkumar Parshottambhai Sagar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2163; (2007)3GLR1889
C.K. Buch, J.1. The appellant is the orig.convict (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') of Special Case No. 2 of 1987 decided by the learned Special Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, vide his judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10th August, 1990, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The present appeal is under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the appellant assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence on various grounds. By way of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge in this appeal, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default to make payment of fine, rigorous...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »