Gujarat Court October 2008 Judgments
Gulam Mohammad Malik Vs. Shailendra Lodha and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR587
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, [for short 'the Ld. Trial Judge'] on 9/3/2004 in NDPS Case No. 1 of 2002. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order dated 9/3/2004, the Ld. Trial Judge was pleased to convict original accused - Gulam Mohammad Malik for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20(B) and Section 29 read with Section 8[C] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [for short 'NDPS Act'] and the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order recording conviction for the aforesaid offences, the original accused Gulam Mohammad Malik preferred Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2004 challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment. T...
Tag this Judgment!Saddik Alias Lalo Gulam HusseIn Shaikh and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1087
D.N. Patel, J.1. The aforesaid two Appeals have been preferred by the accused persons against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16th November, 2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, whereby the present appellants have been convicted mainly for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months, and they were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 Criminal Appeal No. 2274 of 2006 has been preferred by accused No. 5 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2007 has been preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 4.2. If the facts of the prosecution are unfolded, they are summarised in short, as under.3. An offence of murder of R...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Chandubhau Shiroya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(134)ECC294; 2008(160)LC294(Gujarat); 2009(234)ELT24(Guj)
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. The appellant-Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the composite order dated 6.7.2007 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal') in Appeal No. E/913-914/2006. The Tribunal was hearing appeals preferred by the Unit and the Director and a consolidated order was passed. Being aggrieved by the direction contained in the order of the Tribunal whereby the penalty imposed upon the Director has been set aside, the Revenue has come before us in appeal against this part of the order of the Tribunal.2. The following substantial question of law has been proposed by the Revenue:(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalty on the Director under Rule 209A presently Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002?3. However, we make it clear that for reasons recorded hereunder, we do not intend to enter into the merits of the appeal and, there...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Alias Deepo Govindbhai Vidyadhar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1693
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19th November, 2003 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9. Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2002 and Sessions Case No. 194 of 2002. whereby the present appellant, who is original accused No. 1 has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant is also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Rest of the accused persons were given benefit of doubt and had been acquitted. Against this order, the original accused No. l- appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Necessary brief facts of the case, are as un...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Bhogilal Tadvi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1486; (2009)1GLR91
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26th October, 1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, further simple imprisonment of one month. The appellant has also been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/, in default, further simple imprisonment of one month has been awarded. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the present case are as under:On 8th June, 1992 at about 2-00 p.m., there was a hot altercation betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Farooq Alias Ashish Habib Parmar and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1478
D.N. Patel, J.1. Both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals as well as Criminal Revision Applications have been preferred because of conviction of some of the accused; acquittal of some of the accused; for, expunging the remarks against the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Criminal Revision Application No. 578 of 1998 has been preferred by the original complainant against the judgement and order of acquittal of some of the accused, which has been passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad dated 6th July, 1998 in Sessions Case Nos. 82 of 1997 and 133 of 1997.2. Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 1998 has been preferred by the original accused Nos. 4 and 5 as they are convicted for life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Accused Nos. 1,2,3 and 6 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Therefore, State has preferred an acquittal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 803 ...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Suresh Bhatnagar Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]147CompCas576(Guj); (2008)221CTR(Guj)70; [2009]308ITR113(Guj); [2009]183TAXMAN287(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. As the issue involved in all the three petitions is common, all the three petitions have been taken up for hearing together.2. Rule in each of the petitions. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-authority in each of the petitions is directed to waive service of rule. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal today.3. Each of the petitioner has challenged order dated 19-8-2008 made by respondent-authority under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Each of the petitioner is a Director of a Company, named, Diamond Project Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). For assessment year 2001-02, pursuant to assessment order dated 31-12-2006 demand of Rs. 3,62,01,913/- was raised in hands of the Company. The appeal filed by the Company before Commissioner (Appeals) came to be dismissed vide order dated 31-3-2008. The Company has preferred Second Appeal before th...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)398; [2009]319ITR282(Guj)
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondent is directed to waive service of notice of rule for the respondent. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is heard and finally decided today.2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assessee has challenged the notice dated 31-03-2008 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) in respect of Assessment Year 2001-02 by the Assessing Officer, on the ground that the same is illegal, without jurisdiction and beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed under the Act.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a Limited Company, filed its original return of income on 24-10-2001, declaring therein, a total income of Rs. 18,26,66,410/-. On 23-02-2004 the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. On 31-03-2008 the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvansing Omkarsing Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR245
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 71, 263, 327, 948 and 1266 of 2004 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 2005 were original-accused persons in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2002, who came to be convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Panchmahals at Godhra on dated 9-1-2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (T.P.C, for short) and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment ('R.I.', for short) for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. and R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 397 of I.P.C. The appellant-accused preferred these appeals, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge.2. Criminal Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Stevan Chhotabhai Rajwadi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR279
A.L. Dave, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order rendered by the Sessions Court, Bharuch at Rajpipla, on 15th March, 2004, in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2003.' The appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 493, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The Court also ordered that out of the amount deposited by way of fine, Rs. 10,000/- would be paid to the complainant as compensation.2. Complainant Kapilaben, daughter of Rupjibhai Keliya Vasava, lodged an F.I.R. on 28-9-2002 (12-8-2002) against the appellant before the District Superintendent of Police, Narmada m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »