Gujarat Court August 2007 Judgments

Pratibha Dineshkumar Vania and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: II(2008)DMC54; (2007)3GLR2581

M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned A.P.P. waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Sikander Saiyed, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. Present application has been filed by the petitioners-original applicants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the order dated 12-7-2007 passed below Exh. No. 1 and Exh. No. 10 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2606 of 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad insofar as in granting interim maintenance to the petitioners i.e. wife and minor child at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month only.3. The petitioners herein - wife and minor child has filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 2606 of 2005 before the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad for getting maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code ...

Gokalbhai Nanabhai Patel Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: AIR2008Guj2; (2008)1GLR560

ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. Leave to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is granted.Rule. Learned Counsel for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.2. The present petition has been preferred to ventilate the grievances about misuse of powers vested in Chief Information Commissioner, who is Second Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005').3. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 14th June, 2007 passed by Chief Information Commissioner while hearing Second Appeal No. 730 of 2006-07, in which, order of demolition has been passed by Chief Information Commissioner.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner ' submitted that respondent No. 5 had applied for getting information under the Act, 2005 to Public Information Officer i.e. Talati-cum-Mantri, Village: Kheroli, Taluka: Virpur, District: Kheda i.e. respondent No. 4. His application under Section 6 of the Act, 2005 ...

Maruti Travels Through Proprietor Jagdish Barot Vs. Nuclear Power Corp ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2008GLH(1)550; (2008)2GLR925

M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the decision of respondent No. 1 Nuclear Power Corporation of India to award the contract to M/s. Jaydev Barot (respondent No. 3 herein) for hiring and running of different types of brand new vehicles on contract basis for a period of three years from 1-9-2007 for its Kakrapar Atomic Power Station.2. By tender notice, the respondent-Corporation had invited sealed tenders for the above contract. The tenders were opened on 14-6-2007. Five sealed tenders were received within the stipulated time including the tender submitted by the petitioner and also the tender submitted by respondent No. 3 herein. The rates quoted by above five parties against the estimated rate of Rs. 1,90,84,752/- (Rupees one crore ninety lacs eighty-four thousand seven hundred fifty-two only) at the rate of Rs. 5,30,132/- p.m. (Rupees five lacs thirty thousand one hundred thirty-two only) are as under:---------------...

State of Gujarat Vs. Vikrambhai Nanjibhai Gameti

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2008CriLJ962; (2007)3GLR2697

Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. This Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 14th September, 2006, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Sessions Case No. 134 of 2005 whereby the respondent (original accused) came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Bachubhai Nemaji Gameti filed a complaint on 14th May, 2005, at Vijaynagar Police Station to the effect that on 13th May, 2005, Naresh, the son of the complainant, had taken about 40 goats for grazing into Kherwada forest at about 10 O'clock in the morning. After he had gone into the forest, the complainant saw the accused - Vikrambhai Nanjibhai Gameti, who is the son of the elder brother of the complainant, going into Kherwada forest on a bicycle, with an axe tied on to it, a...

R.J. Paper Mills P. Ltd. Vs. O.L. of Superior Sox Ltd. and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [2008]142CompCas562(Guj)

M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 25, 2007, of the learned company judge in Official Liquidator Report No. 105 of 2007 in Company Petition No. 140 of 2006.2. M/s. Superior Sox Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by the company court by judgment dated November 13, 2006, in Company Petition No. 140 of 2006. This company petition arose from the opinion dated June 13, 2006, recorded by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('the B1FR') under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the SICA') opining that it was just, equitable and in public interest that the company was not likely to become viable in future and hence M/s. Superior Sox Ltd. should be wound up. This opinion was recorded after observing that the promoters of the company were not serious in rehabilitating the company nor were they resourceful enough to mobilize the funds required for that purpose. The ...

Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Gujarat Civil Supply Corpn. ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: AIR2008Guj6

M.S. Shah, J.1. The petitioner, three in number, are engaged in the business of production and supply of supplementary nutrition food with manufacturing units in the State of Rajasthan at Kota, Jaipur and Udaipur. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners (two Private Limited Companies and one partnership firm) challenge the decision of the respondent No. 1 'Gujarat Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation')' excluding the petitioners from further tender process after opening of technical bids.2. The basic facts leading to filing of these petitions are not in dispute.The Corporation issued tender notice dated 12-7-2007 inviting bids through e-tendering method from eligible flour millers for grinding of approx. 33,084 MT per annum quantity of wheat to get whole wheat flour and fortification of whole wheat flour with multiple micro nutrients as per the requirement of Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) for distribut...

Becharbhai S. Prajapati Vs. State of Gujarat

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2008CriLJ505; (2008)2GLR1075

M.D. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-11-1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar, in Special Case No. 9 of 1991 whereby the appellant-Becharbhai Saburbhai Prajapati was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year in respect of offence punishable under Section 161, IPC and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default, R.I. for one year in respect of offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, however, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It may be noted here that by the said judgment, the learned Special Judge had acquitted the accused Nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges levelled against them.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 12-12-1990, one Luxury Bus bearing No. GTS 9919 was hired by Ramnikdas Hargovindas from Bharat Travels Company for carrying a marriage party from Mahuva to Selana. According to the complainant-Ghelabhai Jasabhai, the Mehtaji of Bhar...

Amirali Jafarali Khoja Vs. Mohmadbhai Usmanbhai Shaikh and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2008ACJ2012; (2007)3GLR2650

R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant-Faridabanu (since deceased through her legal representatives) has filed the present appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 7th May, 1982 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad in M.A.C.P. No. 104 of 1980, dismissing the claim, is before this Court with a submission that the learned Tribunal below was unjustified in dismissing the claim.2. In an accident between two trucks bearing Registration Nos. GTC-3113 (belonging to the appellant) and GTB-6834 (driven by one Gangaram Bhalaji Rajput), the driver of other truck bearing No. GTB-6834 suffered certain injuries and one inmate of the truck, namely, Abhesinh Pratapbhai Baria also suffered certain injuries. The said Abhesinh filed M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 1980, but during pendency of the said claim petition, he died as a result of the injuries, therefore, his legal representatives were substituted on record. The driver of truck No. GTB-6834 filed M.A.C.P. No. 105 of 1980 and the...

Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of Gujarat

Court: Gujarat

A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Appellant (the Accused for short) along with other 25 accused was charged and tried by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1997 and 14 of 1997 for commission of the offence under Sections 302, 365, 387, 332, read with Sections 34, 120B, 201, 202 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC for short), and under Sections 21(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, on the accusation that the Accused and the other accused persons belonging to the gang of Abdul Latif Abdulwahab Sheikh accused No. 24, who was supplying the foreign liquor, hatched a conspiracy to kill Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi, who was importing foreign liquor and not purchasing the same from deceased Abdul Latif Abdulwahab Sheikh. As a part of that conspiracy, deceased was kidnapped and thereafter the Accused fired bullet from his foreign made revolver, which he has possessed illegally, and caused the death of Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi.2. At the end of the trial, as...

Baba Ramdev Pasti Bhandar Thropartners Vs. Gabhabhai Amarabhai Parmar

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR815]; (2008)1GLR530

R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri Kunal S.Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri M.S. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 7 at Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No. 1091/94 requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,22,826/- with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 2500/-, is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,with a submission that the award is patently bad. 3. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present matter are that the respondent Gabhabhai Amarbhai Parmar filed a Recovery Application under Section 33C[2] of the Industrial Disputes Act, submitting, inter alia, that he was employed by the present petitioner-employer on consolidated annual salary of Rs. 700/-. This I am recording from the statement of Gabhabhai Amarbhai, which is available at Exh.8 and has been filed before this Court at Annexure: B. He submitted that he was terminated from s...