Gujarat Court March 2009 Judgments
Shri Dhulabhai Manibhai Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1545
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The appellant, who was original accused in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2004, by preferring this appeal challenged the legality and validity of his conviction, recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad [Rural] on 27/5/2005 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. The Ld. Trial Judge awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under section376 of the IPC and RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of set off was given.2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the appellant happens to be father-in-law of prosecutrix - Bhavna alias Bhavika. The prosecutrix married with Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Devgiri Giri Vs. Porbandar Nagarpalika
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1497
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mr. Chandrakant Devgiri Giri, party-in-person and Mr. Devnani learned Advocate for the respondent. It is noticed that by earlier order, 'Rule' was made returnable, however subsequently in 2005 the proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the petition came to be restored. However, so as to avoid complications on the issue as to whether status of 'Rule' was restored or not fresh 'Rule' is issued. Mr. Devnani learned Advocate waives service of 'Rule' on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today.2. This petition has been filed against an order dated 29-9-1995 whereby the Labour Court, Junagadh has rejected the Reference being Reference (L.C.R.) No. 68 of 1990 (Old No. 538 of 1982). The Reference has been rejected on the ground of non-prosecution. The Labour Court has recorded that despite the fact that the proceedings and the hearing of Reference have been adjourned ti...
Tag this Judgment!Mukeshbhai Balubhai Ramani Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1749
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The appellant, who was original-accused in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2001 came to be convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli by judgment and order dated 16-8-2003 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C, for short). The appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Savitaben was the second wife of the appellant. The first wife of the appellant had expired, and therefore, the appellant remarried Savitaben. At the time when appellant remarried Savitaben, it was also the second marriage of Savitaben. However, her husband had died, but during he...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alfa Lamination
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Guj)212
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant Revenue has proposed following three questions:[A] 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that assessee was engaged in carrying on the activity of manufacturing though it has been categorically held by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that activity carried on by assessee tantamounts to cutting and not manufacturing or production.'[B] 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article or thing and is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 though assessee failed to fulfill the condition laid down under Section 80IB(2)(iii) of the Act?'[C] 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article or thing when one of the member dissented and decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitkumar Jivabhai Thakkar and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Guj4; (2009)2GLR1667
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Question that is posed for our consideration is whether a third party can invoke the provisions of Sub-section (25) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 so as to prevent the abuse of the process of the Tribunal and to secure ends of justice.2. Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Anil Nandkishor Tibrewala and Anr. v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. : 2007 (3) Bom.CR 941, interpreting Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'R.D.B. Act') held as follows:A reading of this provision would indicate that there is a power in the Tribunal to give orders or directions to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. It is open to the Tribunal to lay down its own procedure and it is not hidebound by the procedural provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time, certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been conferred on...
Tag this Judgment!ilyashbhai Umarjibhai Patel Vs. Faridaben Ilyashbhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1875
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent No. 1-wife preferred the application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate being Criminal Application No. 86 of 1995. The learned Magistrate ultimately passed the order, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month vide judgment dated 31-3-1997. It appears, that thereafter, since the said amount was not sufficient, another application was preferred under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., by the respondent No. 1 being Criminal Application No. 53 of 2003 for enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 2,000/- per month from Rs. 400/- per month. The learned Magistrate in the said matter ultimately passed the judgment and order, whereby he has directed the petitioner to pay an additional maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month, total Rs. 700/- per month vide judgment dated 21-9-2006. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah Vs. Gordhanji S/O. Mafaji Motiji Thakor an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1436
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contains the following prayers:18.A. This Honorable Court be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 10-9-2007 passed below Exh. 29 in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006, by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar,B. Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the Honorable Court may be pleased to stay the execution and operation and implementation of the order dated 10-9-2007 passed below Exhibit 29 in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006, by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar,C. Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the Honorable Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings/hearing of Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006, pending before the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar.2. The facts leading to the petition, in brief, are as under:2.1. The deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Raza Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2053
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner/original accused No. 8 has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint No. 325 of 2006 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mundra, Kutch. This Court has admitted the petition on 7-3-2007 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 19(1)(b), thereby staying the further proceedings of the complaint, qua the petitioner.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has served the Indian Administrative Service from the year 1960 to 1995. The petitioner retired as Secretary to Government of India having served in the position in both the Cabinet Secretary and Minister of State. Even after retirement, he served as Chairman of the Standing Conference of Public Enterprise (SCOPE). He was also associated with various social and industrial organizations. He was Chairman of various institutions, a detailed list of which was given in the m...
Tag this Judgment!Barot Vitthalbhai Damodardas Vs. Natwarbhai Umedbhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1974
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is the landlord of a shop No. 61 of Laxmi Shopping Centre, Modasa. The electricity connection vide No. 24501/05367/J was granted by the Electricity Company to the said landlord. The petitioner has rented the shop to one Patel Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai and he is in occupation of the shop since 18-1-2006 and is running the business in the name of Maa Ambe Wooden Works. It appears that as per the Electricity Company-original complainant, on 17-4-2006, the inspection was made of the electricity connection and it was found that there was some alleged irregularities in the service line wire and as per the Electricity Company, it could be termed as theft falling under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). Therefore, the complaint was filed vide C.R. No. II-845 of 2006 of G.E.B. Police Station, Sabarmati. In the said complaint, the name of the accused is shown as o...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Manohar Dange Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2406
D.H. Waghela, J.1. After the arguments having been concluded by learned Counsel Mr. Anjaria at the time of last hearing, the petition was argued de novo by learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Thakore, and it was specifically declared that the petitioner did not propose to withdraw the petition but invited a judgement.2. The petitioner has invoked provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution for the relief of quashing Criminal Inquiry Case No. 11 of 2003, in which, by order dated 22-7-2005, summons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 34 and 427 of I.P.C. are ordered to be issued to all the five accused persons, one of whom is the petitioner.3. The original complainant, Gujarat Maritime Board, respondent No. 2 herein, has filed the complaint dated 13-8-2003 with elaborate details of the accused persons having assured the complainant about payment of rent, and the plot and the structures thereon being entrusted to the accused persons on the bas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »