Gujarat Court February 2009 Judgments
Rajubhai Jivabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)1GLR893
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-2-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Modasa in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2002 recording conviction of the accused for offence under Sections 376 and 323 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.') and imposing sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 and fine of Rs. 5000/- and also recording conviction for offence under Section 376 and imposing R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/-. The sentences were also ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows:2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16-11-2001, when the victim girl aged about 7 years had taken the cattle for grazing at the outskirts of village Bayad, the accused had come there, caught hold and dragged her in the field, and thereafter, overpowered her and committed the alleged offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. It is alleged that, as a result thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Metro Hospital and Research Institute Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1537
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26-3-2008 passed by the respondent No. 3 and order dated 16-9-2008 passed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to refund the amount of additional stamp duty of Rs. 49,75,461/- inclusive of fine of Rs. 250/- to the petitioner paid by it with 12% interest from the date of payment till realization with cost thereon.2. This Court has issued notice on 21-1-2008. The petition, was thereafter, admitted on 17-11-2008.3. It is the case of the petitioner that Mayo Hospital (now in liquidation) is company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. By order dated 11-2-2004 passed in Company Petition No. 152 of 1995 and 181 of 1998 Mayo Hospital was directed to be wound-up by this Court and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Liquidator of the Company and he took possession of all...
Tag this Judgment!Viramgam Municipality Vs. Dansig Chaturbhai Vaghela
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ465Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge, after almost 3 years, an order dated May 9, 2005 passed by the Controlling Authority directing present petitioner to pay gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 51,640/- along with interest at the rate of 10% w. e.f. April 1, 1996.2. Either from the annexures to the petition or from the averments in the petition, it does not emerge that the petitioner herein carried the order dated May 9, 2005 passed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. Not only the petitioner failed to challenge the Controlling Authority's order before the Appellate Authority, but did not take any steps in connection with the said order and now, after almost 3 years when the Controlling Authority, on account of total inaction on the part of the petitioner, issued recovery certificate, the petitioner has woken up from slumber and has approac...
Tag this Judgment!Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Guj)283
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Learned advocate for the respondent in each of the petitions is directed to waive service and the petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal today considering the scope of the controversy. The three petitions involve Assessment Years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 respectively.2. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, is engaged in the business of developing land and construction of residential and commercial buildings.3. For Assessment Year 2000-2001, the return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed on 30.11.2000. The return of income was accompanied by audited Profit and Loss Account, balance sheet, etc. For the assessment year, the acknowledgment receipt dated 30.11.2000 was the only communication for showing that the assessment had been completed under Section 143(1) of the Act.4. For Assessment Year 2001-2002, return of income was filed on 31.10.2001. The respondent authority made an inquiry regarding ...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakumari Narhariprasad Pandya Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2165
D.H. Waghela, J.1. After prolonged pendency at the admission stage and listing of the matter for not less than 46 times, the petition is argued for admission. The petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as well as the provisions of Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for 'a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction transferring the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-8 of 2007 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad'. Admittedly, the petitioner-wife has lodged complaint dated 9-1-2007 at Amreli against her husband for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code while she had already shifted to Gandhinagar. Admittedly, the respondent-husband and the witnesses of the petitioner are residents of Amreli and the complaint registered as C.R. No. 8 of 2007 has culminated into Criminal Case No. 178 of 2007 in w...
Tag this Judgment!G.S.R.T.C. Through Divisional Controller Vs. AnwarhusaIn Mamhadbhai Ka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ442Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Ms. Jyoti Mehta learned advocate for Mr. Rawal learned advocate for petitioner and Mrs. Shaikh learned advocate for respondent.2. Rule. Ms. Jyoti Mehta learned advocate for Mr. Rawal learned advocate for the petitioner waives service of rule and Mrs. Shaikh learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for the respondent. At the request and with the consent of the learned advocates, this petition is taken up for final disposal today.3. In this petition the petitioner has brought under challenge order dated June 29, 2007 passed by the controlling authority in gratuity application No. 16/2007 and has also brought under challenge order dated February 19, 2008 passed by the appellate authority in, gratuity appeal No. 57/2008. By the said order the appellate authority has rejected appeal and confirmed the order passed by the controlling authority.4. By the impugned order dated June 29, 2007 the controlling authority came to the conclusion that the applicant viz. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Through Divisional Controller ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1778
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Ms. Jyoti Mehta learned Advocate for Mr. Rawal learned Advocate for petitioner and Mrs. Shaikh learned Advocate for respondent.2. Rule. Ms. Jyoti Mehta learned Advocate for Mr. Rawal learned Advocate for the petitioner waives service of rule and Mrs. Shaikh learned Advocate waives service of notice of rule for the respondent. At the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates, this petition is taken up for final disposal today.3. In this petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge order dated 29-6-2007 passed by the controlling authority in gratuity Application No. 16 of 2007 and has also brought under challenge order dated 19-2-2008 passed by the appellate authority in gratuity Appeal No. 57 of 2008. By the said order the appellate authority has rejected appeal and confirmed the order passed by the controlling authority.4. By the impugned order dated 29-6-2007 the controlling authority came to the conclusion that the applicant viz. present re...
Tag this Judgment!Rahematibanu Nazirmohammad Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2018
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 in Sessions Case No. 226 of 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad City, recording the conviction of Accused No. 1 for the offence under Sections 302, 452, 323 of Indian Penal Code, imposing sentence of life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC. Further, also recording the acquittal of Accused No. 2 for the alleged offence under Sections 302, 452, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Accused No. 3 had been absconding, and therefore, the trial had proceeded qua Accused Nos. 1 and 2 only and the conviction has been recorded for Accused No. 1 and acquittal has been recorded for Accused No. 2.2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows:2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that when Sahnazbanu (deceased Sahnazbanu) was at her house, Accused No. 1 (Al) is said to have a quarrel that why she was having an affair with h...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Bharatkumar Naranbhai Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ155Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition, an award dated February 6, 2007 is brought under challenge. By the said award, the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad has rejected the Reference (LCA) No. 2130/1992.2. This petition appears to have been filed on or around April 3, 2008 and since then, the petition has been adjourned from time to time either on the ground of leave note or sick note of the learned advocate for the petitioner. Today also, when the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Hence, the matter is taken up for hearing in absence of the petitioner's advocate.3. In the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has recorded that the company against which the reference proceedings were preferred has been closed down.4. The petitioner approached the learned Labour Court with a grievance that he was put under suspension w.e.f. June 29, 1991 pending inquiry and the inquiry was concluded on May 9, 1992 and thereafter, his service was terminated.5. Aggriev...
Tag this Judgment!Anupam N. Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1496
D.H. Waghela, J.Rule of which notice is waived for the respondents.1. The petitioner, an Advocate, has, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., sought quashing of the complaint registered as Criminal Case No. 8 of 2007 along with order dated 11-9-2007 made therein to issue process. The original complainant, a client of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein, has alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 418 of I.P.C. in the complaint dated 12-1-2007 wherein investigation by police was ordered under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. on 16-1-2007. After considering the police report, order dated 23-7-2007 was made to register the complaint and issue process for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 418 of I.P.C. The petitioner assailed registration of the complaint as a criminal case and the order to issue process mainly on the ground that orders dated 16-1-2007 and 23-7-2007 were made without recording statement of the complainant on oath as required under the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »