Gujarat Court June 2008 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Maheshbhai Ranchodbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2566
J.R. Vora, J.1. All the above mentioned proceedings are preferred challenging the judgment and order delivered by Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 7th of January, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004.2. It is stated that justice hurried is justice buried. The present is a glaring example of undue haste by the then Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in disposing of the trial and acquitting the accused for the serious offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Before considering the respective Appeals and the Revision Application on merits, few dates are required to be noted, which will demonstrate the undue haste by the then learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in disposing of the trial and acquitting the accused and convicting the original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code only, and that too, sentencing him to undergo only three days S.I., possib...
Maruti Minerals and Metals Vs. the Govt. of India and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2262
ORDERAnant S. Dave, J.1. Rule. Mr. D.C. Sejpal, learned Central Government Counsel, Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned AGP and learned Counsel Mr. Dipen C. Shah, waive service of notice of Rule for respective respondents.2. All these writ petitions involve similar issues for determination of this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, all these three writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Mr. Satyen Thakkar, learned Counsel appearing for all the petitioners, submits that arguments and submissions advanced on the question of law are also common except certain facts, as stated in the Special Civil Application No. 14135 of 2007. The petitioner is a proprietary concern and uses Manganese Ore for its captive consumption also. In Special Civil Application No. 14135 of 2007, following prayers are made by the petitioner:(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue w...
Shahjanand Education Trust Vs. Hemchandracharya North Gujarat Universi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2475
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision and order dated 12.05.2008 taken by the Executive Committee of respondent No. 1-University in the meeting held on 30.04.2008. A copy of the said decision, which is a Resolution being Resolution No. 42(21) passed by the Executive Committee of respondent No. 1 in the meeting on 30.04.2008 is placed on record at Annexure-D [Page 65 of the petition). By virtue of the said decision, communicated to the petitioner on 12.05.2008, respondent No. 1-University has declined the petitioner's request for affiliation despite the fact that the petitioner has been granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE' for short) under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] read with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter r...
Acharya Kamleshkumar Suryakantbhai and anr. Vs. Registrar, Co-op. Soci ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj39; (2008)3GLR2185
K.M. Thaker, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court with below mentioned prayers:(A) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to remove the executive committee of respondent No. 3-Bank and to appoint Administrator- Custodian for reconstitution of the Committee of the respondent No. 3-Society;(B) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent Nos. 2 to supersede the executive committee and/or to remove the executive of the respondent No. 3-Society forthwith and to appoint the officer, Administrator or Custodian in place thereof;(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, an interim injunction may kindly be granted staying the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned resoluti...
Kaminiben S. Padhya Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1833
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Notice was issued on 9-6-2008 and in view of the facts of the case, it was made returnable today. Mr. V.H. Patel, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. In view of the issue raised, Rule. Mr. Shah and Mr. Patel waive service of Rule. Considering the impugned order and on request of the parties and with their consent, Rule returnable today and matter is taken for final hearing and disposal today. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court against the communication order dated 7-6-2008. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has, by the said communication-order, restrained the Siddhpur Nagarpalika from holding meeting(s) until 18-6-2008. The petitioner has preferred the petition, mainly, on the ground that the respondent No. 1 does not have any power or jurisdiction to restrain the Nagarpalika from holding meeting(s) and/or members of the Nagarpalika from participating in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›