Gujarat Court November 2008 Judgments
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Applitech Solution Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj54; (2009)2GLR1276
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1126 of 2008 arises out of Interim order passed by the learned single Judge on 16-3-2008. When the appeal came up for hearing, with the consent of parties we called for the main writ petition and heard the appeal as well as the writ petition finally.2. Appeal has been preferred by Standard Chartered Bank, a banking company within the meaning of definition 2(e) of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, first respondent in the application. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein preferred Special Civil Application challenging an order passed by the Presiding Officer of DRT, Ahmedabad, on 9-5-2008, allowing an application preferred by Standard Chartered Bank, for substituting itself in place in ICICI Bank in the recovery certificate No. 1941 issued in O.A. No. 62/2003.3. ICICI Bank Limited had filed O.A. No. 62/2003 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,38,67,473/- from ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirubhai Shambhubhai Bhandar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR904
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was pressed now, after 14 years of its pendency, on the basis that original complainant was no longer inclined to pursue the matter, and in fact, the investigating agency had already filed investigation report in the form of 'A' summary before the trial Court, in spite of stay of further proceedings granted by this Court on 16-3-1994.2. In view of the factual situation emerging from the submission of learned Counsel, by order dated 11-11-2008, the original complainant was directed to be informed to remain personally present in the Court particularly because the complainant was found to have been unable to pursue the proceedings. There is no dispute or doubt about the fact that all the original accused persons were practicing Advocates and the original complainant had made written application to withdraw the complaint of serious offences under duress. However, upon the original complainant appearing before the Court with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Medical Director Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1048
ORDERIn view of the above circumstances, the Revision Application of the applicant Trust is partly admitted and the order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, dated 17.5.94 is hereby dismissed, and taking into consideration the aforesaid observations, by getting the evidence in connection with the show cause notice and by getting information on how much land the applicant trust has made construction, a maximum acceptable land of 5,000 sq. mtrs., on which the construction is made including the open land to be kept open as per Rule, should be kept with the Trust and direct the collector to order to do the proceedings of taking the remaining possession of land by the Government and with such direction the case is remanded to the Honourable Collector, Gandhinagar.'2.7 Learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing notice in the present petition on 24.6.98 passed the following order:Leave to amend.In response to the suggestion from the Court Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing f...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishbhai Popatbhai Khokhani Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1272; (2009)2GLR1446
ORDERZ.K. Saiyed, J.1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Maulik Nanavati waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.2. The present applicant - original accused in CR No. I - 44 of 2008, registered with Varachha Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable, under Sections 306, 504, 498-A and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, has filed this Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on Bail. Since 27.1.200.8 the, applicant is in judicial custody.3. It is alleged in the complaint by the complainant, brother of deceased Divyaben, that Divyaben @ Chandrika was married with Jagdishbhai Popatbhai Khokhani, present applicant, on 1.2.1998 and out of their wedlock two children were born. It is alleged that after birth of baby child the victim visited her parents house and told them that her husband - applicant is consuming liquor and not doing any work and quarreling with her without any reason and asked the deceased to bring money...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Panchmahal Steel Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2008
Reported in: [2009]90SCL253(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner Company has filed this petition under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 to obtain sanction of this Court to the modified scheme of compromise and/or arrangement between the petitioner and its secured lenders and equity shareholders.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present-petition are that in 1995-96, the petitioner Company took up a Steel Melt Shop (SMS) Project for a capacity of 1,50,000 M.T. per annum. However, on account of recessionary trends in the steel sector, the petitioner company could not achieve the financial closure of the project. Further, reduction in operating margins as a result of competitive pressures, unexpected delay in stabilization of the new rolling mill and the requirement of servicing the project, debt led to liquidity problems. At the end of financial year in March, 2001 the petitioner company's accumulated losses exceeded its net worth and hence came within the purview of Section 3(1)(0) of Sick Industrial Companies (...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat University and anr. Vs. Rajnish Kumar Rai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR912
ORDER:39. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While for the reasons given in this judgment, we confirm the finding of the learned single Judge quashing and setting aside the decision of the Executive Council regarding adoption of unfair means by the respondent-student at the First LL.B. held on 25-4-2008, and we also confirm the direction given by the learned single Judge to the appellant-University to declare the result of the respondent-student at the First LL.B. examination held in April, 2008, we set aside that part of the order of the learned single by which the University has been directed to permit the respondent-student to take admission to the Second LL.B. Class in the Monsoon Semester (which is already over by now) and Winter Semester simultaneously and to appear at the Second LL.B. examination for both the Monsoon Semester and the Winter Semester, which examination is to be held in April/May, 2009.The respondent's result at the First LL.B. Examination held in April,...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Khambhat Taluka Sarvajanik Kelavani Mandal Vs. Khambhat Nagarpal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR562
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question that has come for consideration in this case is whether the District Collector, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 258(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (for brevity 'the Act'), can interfere with the demand notice issued by the Nagar Palika under Section 132(2) of the Act, for recovery of property tax.2. The Executive Committee of Khambhat Nagar Palika passed a Resolution No. 190 assessing 198 property holders and demanding property tax, which included the second respondent as well. Before enforcing the levy of tax, opportunity was given to all the property holders to file their objection. Consequently, second respondent filed his objection on 21.3.2006. Most of the property holders paid the tax demanded, however, some of the property holders filed objections. Objection filed by the second respondent was considered by the Nagar Palika and the same was rejected. Thereafter, bills at Annexure 'B' collectively were issued to...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Bhanuben Maganbhai Havalia Wd/O. M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR597
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellant-Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and learned Advocate Mr. Kishor M. Paul for respondent claimant.2. Through this appeal, appellant-Corporation has challenged order passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhavnagar Exh. 38 in W.C. (Fatal) Case No. 4 of 2005 dated 28-8-2008 wherein Commissioner has granted compensation of Rs. 2,99,559-00 in favour of claimant with simple interest thereon at the rate of 9 percent per annum from 22-9-2004 and also to pay amount of penalty at the rate of 25 percent of Rs. 74,890-00 to applicant within thirty days from the date of order.3. Facts of case of applicant were to the effect that husband of applicant Maganbhai Havalia was serving as permanent safai kamdar in establishment of appellant in conservancy department. Claimant is also performing duty as safai kamdar in the appellant establishment. After getting the presence marked, claimant was going in district allotted for...
Tag this Judgment!Kandari Village Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR242
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred by Kandari Village Panchayat, through its administrator praying for quashing and setting aside order dated 3-10-2000 (Annexure-A) made by respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No. 15 of 1999 under provisions of Section 10 of the Saurashtra Felling of Trees (Infliction of Punishment) Act, 1951 (the Act).2. In 1995 election of Village Panchayat had taken place and an elected body had come into existence. Sometime in March, 1997 one Dabhi Manubhai Bhagwandas, resident of Kandari Village, made an application to the Village Panchayat regarding a banyan tree causing obstruction and likely damage that may be caused by the branches of the said banyan tree, in the event such branches fell on the house of the applicant. Pursuant thereto on 14-3-1997 the Village Panchayat assembled and a Resolution was passed in the following terms:Upon discussion on the subject stated in column 4, reading the application of Manubhai Bhagwandas Dabhi etc., and ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukhbhai Gokaldas Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2919; (2009)2GLR984
J.R. Vora, J.1. Instant Appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order, delivered by Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, on 23rd of September, 1996, in Special Criminal Case No. 12 of 1993. Present appellant, being accused of the said Special Criminal Case No. 12 of 1993, was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 306, 323 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1)(x) as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Vide judgment impugned in this Appeal, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1, 000/-, in default, to undergo ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »