Gujarat Court February 2009 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. Laxmansinhji Dansinhji Gohil and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1919
ORDERDated : 3-3-2009:23. Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. Accused No. 1 was present before the Court earlier and submitted that he is medically unfit, so at his request time was granted. Today, the son of accused No. 1 remained present before the Court with medical papers showing that the accused No. 1 is in the hospital. Accused No. 2 is present and prayed for rehearing the matter. The appeal was heard at length and since Mr. Buddhbhatti has represented the case of the accused No. 2 also and since we propose to award minimum sentence, the request of accused No. 2 is not required to be considered. The accused No. 2 has already been served and chosen not to appear before the Court at the time of hearing.24. After careful consideration of the evidence on record, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Nadiad in Special Case No. 1 of 1990 is hereby quashed and set aside and we hereby convict the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - accused for the offence punishable...
Harijan Keshubhai Badhabhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2696; (2009)2GLR1189
A.L. Dave, J.1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order rendered by the Sessions Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 62/1998 on 19/10/2002 convicting both of them for the offence of murder of Dalpat Raja and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and fining each of them for Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for two years.1.1. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 1 - Harijan Keshu Badhabhai expired on 30/12/2008 while under treatment at Civil Hospital, Rakot. His heirs and legal representatives have chosen not to pursue this appeal even till today. As a result, the appeal of appellant No. 1 - Harijan keshu Badhabhai would stands abated.2. Brief facts of the case are that the incident in question occurred on 16/9/1997 around 11.30 am in the Court house of 6th Joint Civil Judge [S.D.] and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar. It is the case of the prosecution that both the appellants assaulted deceased Dalpat Raja Harijan with ...
Nitesh Atmaram Parmar and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1108
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-8-2001 by the Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 392 of 2000 recording conviction of the appellants-original accused No. 1 (husband) and accused No. 2 (father-in-law) for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing sentence for life imprisonment. The learned Addl. City Sessions Judge has however recorded acquittal for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C.2. It has been submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti for the appellants-accused that appellant-accused No. 2, father-in-law, has expired, and therefore, this appeal qua accused No. 2 may not survive.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Ranjanben, complainant wife of accused No. 1, was set ablaze on 6-7-2000 when there was a discussion with regard to the curetti...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gordhanbhai Dahyabhai Prajapati an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1132
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati on behalf of United Insurance Company-appellant and learned advocate Mr. Paresh Darji for the respondents-claimants.2. The appellant-Insurance Company challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (R) at Ahmedabad Exh.-118 in MACP No. 1795 of 1990, 1796 of 1990, 1797 of 1990, 1798 of 1990, 1799 of 1990, 1808 of 1990 and 1809 of 1990 dated 31/7/2008. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in each case with 8.5 percent interest in favour of respondent-claimants.3. Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati raised contention that accident occurred on 11/9/1990 prior to amendment in Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act dated 14/11/1994. Therefore, according to his submission, considering an amended Section 147, in goods vehicle any person is not permitted to travel either with goods or without goods and for the same Insurance Company is not liable. He submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed error in con...
Rahul Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3154; (2009)3GLR2148
ORDERD.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioners have exclusively invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to pray for quashing the complaint which is registered as FIR I-C.R. No. 92 of 2008 at Jaipur City (South) Mahila Thana, Rajasthan. The complaint is made for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the complainant's husband and his parents and it alleges series of events occurring at several places in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.2. Since the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court is required to be addressed first, before assuming jurisdiction and issuing process, the facts relevant for that purpose may be culled out and summarized. According to the petition, petitioner No. 1, the husband, was selected for Indian Administrative Services (IAS) of Gujarat Cadre in the year 2004 and respondent No. 1-wife, the original complainant, was selected for IAS of Jammu & Kashmir Cadre in the year 2005. They married at...
Sardarji Maganji Waghela Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1399
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the opinion of the Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' formed under the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act'). In the petition, the following prayers were made:(a) Issue a writ or order or direction of an appropriate nature quashing the Notification dated 4-11-2004 establishing Review Committee itself, being Annexure-A to the writ petition;(b) Issue a writ or order or direction of an appropriate nature quashing the report dated 16-5-2005 passed by the Review Committee in F.I.R. 1-9 of 2002 registered with Godhara Railway Police Station being Annexure-B to the writ petition.1.2. Out of the prayers made, first prayer has been given up. The case is argued to seek the remaining relief.1.3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.B. Vakil started his arguments and submitted that he shall be addressing the Court on the following points including others...
Sabar Kheti Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1093
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Court has heard this petition on 11-2-2009. After hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the petition was dismissed mainly for the reasons that the petitioner No. 1-Society is virtually a defunct society and no activity worth its name are carried out by the petitioner-Society and also for the reason that the petitioner-Society is having an alternative remedy and can challenge the impugned order under Section 109 of the Act. For paucity of time, the Court has pronounced the operative order on 11-2-2009 and observed that the arguments and submissions of the Counsels and the Court's finding thereon with reasons be given later on. The reasons for dismissal of the petition are as under:2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10-2-2009 passed by the District Registrar, Sabarkantha, Annexure 'T' to this petition as well as the order passed by the Additi...
Karadia Haribhai Sidibhai Barad Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1732
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) & Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Special Atrocity Sessions Case No. 16 of 2000, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the sentence has been imposed upon the appellant-accused for the life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 25,000/- and also for 6 months imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 500/- for the respective offences.2. As per the prosecution case, on 28-3-2000, at about 14-30 hours, when the deceased Nathabhai Naranbhai had gone to load sand in the agricultural field of Kanabhai Barad, at that time when the deceased was filling up the sand, the accused-appellant had killed the deceased by giving axe blows. The brother of deceased Gopalbhai Naranbhai was informed by one Punja Vasa and the said brother of the deceased was also informed by his wife...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR1015]; (2009)1GLR834; (2009)IVLLJ198Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. D. Vasavada for the appellant-E.S.I. Corporation and learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. M. Patel with learned Advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel on behalf of the respondent.2. In this appeal, appellant-E.S.I. Corporation has challenged order passed by Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (for short 'the E.S.I. Court') in E.I. Application No. 38 of 1998 vide Exh. 154 dated 7-12-2007 whereby E.S.I. Court has allowed application filed by respondent and it is declared that order passed by Deputy Director of opponent-E.S.I. Corporation dated 17-8-1998 (Annexure-A) is illegal, improper, and therefore, set aside with a direction to E.S.I. Corporation that amount of Rs. 42,935-50 paid excess by Company be refunded with 12% interest.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Vasavada has raised substantial questions of law before this Court in Paras 4(a) and (c) of appeal memo which is as under:4(a) In light of the facts of present case and in view of statutory provisio...
Shatrushalyasinhji Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)312; [2009]182TAXMAN32(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs:(a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents dt. 4th May, 2005 and 7th June, 2005 respectively and set aside the auction sale held by the 2nd respondent on 18th March, 2005;(b) that during the pendency and final hearing of this petition, the 2nd respondent be restrained from issuing sale certificates to the 22 purchasers of the plots illegally sold at auction sale conducted by the 2nd respondent on 18th March, 2005 and that the 2nd respondent be further restrained from putting to auction sale further plots as announced by him after the conclusion of the auction held on 18th March, 2005;(c) that any other and further relief which is just and proper may kindly be granted by this Hon'ble Court.2. The facts in the backdrop of which the controversy arises are tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »