Gujarat Court August 2007 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.
H.P. Dave, Police Sub-inspector Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)193; (2008)2GLR1702
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner-original accused has prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside the Special Case No. 27 of 1998 pending in the Special Court, Surendranagar as well as the order dated 15-4-1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar issuing process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Atrocities Act' for short).2. Respondent No. 2 herein-original complainant filed private complaint being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 1 of 1998 in the Court of learned Special Judge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506(2) of the I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. It appears that before that respondent No. 2 lodged private complaint in...
State of Gujarat Vs. Akbalsing Rameshwarsing
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR174]; (2008)ILLJ238Guj
R.S. garg, J.1. Shri I.M. Pandya learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner-State; Shri U.T. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner-State being aggrieved by the order dated February 10, 1999, passed by the Labour Judge, Ahmedabad, in Recovery Application No. 1962/1987 is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, with a submission that in absence of a pre-adjudicated right or admitted right, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery] application and direct recovery against the petitioner.3. It is to be noted that the State Government, was undisputedly not a party before the Labour Court, the only party before the Labour Court was Director, ESI Corporation. However, present petition came to be filed by the State Government through the/Director of ESI Corporation.4. The petition, at the instance of the State Government would not be maintainable but however, I will take it to be a petition for and on behalf of the Di...
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat State Information Commission and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Guj203; (2008)2GLR1559
ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.Important issues have been raised for the adjudication by this Court, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, viz.:(I) Whether the third parry is entitled to get, written notice, of request of applicant (who is seeking information), so as:(i) to allow/permit the third party to treat the information (relating to or supplied by the third party) as confidential, if so far not treated as confidential; and(ii) to oppose the disclosure of such information i.e. information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to be read with Section 7(7) of the Act 2005.(II) Whether the third party is entitled to get an opportunity of personal hearing before disclosure of information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to...
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project and anr. Vs. Ratilal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR544
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project Unit-12, Bharuch and Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna Naher Division No. 2/3, Karjan, Dist. Baroda appellants herein-original opponents have filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 24-2-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1414 to 1419 of 1997, Main Case No. 1414 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge has pleased to partly allow the reference applications for proportionate cost. The learned Judge has held that the applicants are entitled to receive market price on their acquired land at the rate of Rs. 36-50 per sq.mtr. as additional amount of compensation in Compensation Case No. 13 of 1995 over and above compensation of Rs. 4-17 per sq.mtrs. which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, that means the learned Judge awarded in all Rs. 40-67 ps. per sq.mtrs. The learned Ju...
Kara Bhima Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Guj198; (2008)2GLR921
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State has referred the following two questions under Section 56 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (the Act):(1) Whether the said instrument Titled as Deed of Simple Mortgage executed on dt.7.12.1985 and presented for Registration with Sub-Registrar, Manavdar on dt.7.12.85 bearing Serial No. 317 is liable to stamp duty under Article 36 of Schedule-I to the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, read with Govt. Notification dt.2.7.1970. (ANNEXURE-'E')OR(2) Whether the said instrument fulls within the scope full remission granted inter-alia to the instruments of Mortgage under Govt. R.D. Notification No. GHM-79/108/-M-STP-1479/2288-H dt.23.3.1979 (Annexure-'B').2. The applicant, an individual, had applied to Bank of India, Dungarpur Branch, Taluka District Junagadh for a loan of Rs. 9,80,000/- for the purchase of Air Compressors, Drilling Rods and other Accessories under Agricultural Finance Scheme. Upon being granted the said financial facil...
Santokben Sharmanbhai Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ68; (2008)1GLR497; 2008(2)KLT398
ORDERAt this stage, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed to stay the order passed by this Court. However, considering the need for conducting / performing the aforesaid two tests and those tests are required timely and for the reasons stated above, the prayer of the petitioner to stay the present order is rejected. Even otherwise, it is not that immediately the aforesaid two tests are likely to be conducted / performed upon the petitioner....
Chavda Ghanshyamji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4609
C.K. Buch, J.1. All the four appellants are the original accused of Sessions Case No. 285 of 1992, who have been held guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 of Indian Penal Code and all the four appellants (Original accused) are sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for each of the accused and in the event of non-payment of fine, they are asked to undergo S.I. for one month. The appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge on various grounds as mentioned in Para 5 of the memo of the appeal preferred by the present appellants under Section 374 read with 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The appellant No. 1 was the husband of the deceased Jashuba, appellant No. 2 was the brother-in-law (elder brother of the appellant No. 1),' appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are parents of appellant No. 1 and were father-in-law and mother-in-law ...
Devkinandan K. Mishra Vs. Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR621]; (2008)ILLJ580Guj
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award dated 7th April, 1999 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 650 of 1985 holding that the reference was not maintainable and that even on merits, the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, is before this Court with a submission that the learned Court below erred in rejecting the reference.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present Writ Application are that the order of appointment directed that the petitioner was appointed as a 'Machinist Chargehand' and he was to work himself with the boring, milling and shipping and slotting machine and was also to look after the work of operation on other machines as may be instructed from time to time. He was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 530/- in the grade of 530-15-600. It appears that after some time, on an inspection, the petitioner, who was to supervise the work over the machines, w...
State of Gujarat Vs. Shahnawaz Abdulgafur Bhatti
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR346
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Criminal Confirmation Case No. 7 of 2005 arises pursuant to submission of the proceedings of Sessions Case Nos. 11 of 2002 and 18 of 2003 made under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, District Kachchh at Bhuj, who, by his judgment and order dated 14-10-2005, has sentenced respondent-Shahnawaz Abdulgafur Bhatti, the accused of Sessions Case No. 18 of 2003, ('the accused' for short) to death for commission of offence punishable under Section 121 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C for short) whereas Criminal Appeal No. 2317 of 2005 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code by the accused Shahnawaz Abdulgafur Bhatti from the jail is also directed against the judgment and order dated 14-10-2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, District Kachchh at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2003 by which the appellant/ accu...
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Secretary - Gujarat Petroleum Employees Uni ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR60]; (2008)IILLJ21Guj
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri Keyur Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri T.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award dated 6.10.98 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference [L.C.I.D.A.D.] No. 83 of 1997 [old Reference [L.C.A.] No. 215 of 1982] is before this Court with a submission that the learned Labour Court went beyond the terms of the Reference and further erred in making the award in favour of the workman.3. To properly appreciate the case, this Court is required to make straight the detailed history and crease out the wrinkles which are creating unnecessary shadows over the rights of the parties.4. Raman Punja and number of others were working for the Indian Oil Corporation ['Corporation' for short], it was said by the workmen that they were in fact employed by the Corporation but to avoid liabilities under the Labour Laws, they were shown to be employees of the Contratractor, namely, one ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »