Gujarat Court May 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.
Takadir SamsuddIn Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4095
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 24/01, whereby, both the appellants-accused have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentence has been imposed upon them of life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. It appears that as per the complainant, Bharat Rajendraprasad Trivedi, P.W.1, the deceased Moyuddin Sheikh was dealing in land and he was also purchasing the land in partnership with the complainant as well as with Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh (hereinafter referred to as 'A-1' for the sake of convenience). The complainant, deceased and A-1 had agreed to purchase the land admeasuring 355 sq. mtrs. at village Gotri of one Jadauben Devabhai Parmar. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 21.08.2000, the complainant and the deceased together with A-1 and Rameshbhai Ramlal Kahar (hereinafter referred to as 'A-2' for the sake of convenience) had gone to see the land ...
Vala Manish Vaghabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2278
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred challenging the order made by respondent No. 3, the Collector, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') on 14th September, 1989 (Annexure-F) and Notification No. AKH-122-77-FLD-1477/77072-P dated 19th September, 1977 issued by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1927 (the Central Act) as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, misconceived and capricious.2. It is the say of the petitioners that thereafter, during the course of hearing, the petition came to be amended with the permission of the Court and the challenge to the order made by the Collector on 14th September, 1989 (Annexure-F) has been withdrawn reserving the right to challenge the said order in future and in case of necessity, while an additional challenge has been raised to notice issued by the respondent No. 2 on 12-9/12-2006 (Annexure-I).3. Therefore, challenge is now restricted to proceedings only u...
iim and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj113
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) along with Dean and Acting Director has approached this Court seeking a. declaration that Item (1) of Part-I of Schedule I to The Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to strike down the same as such, and also for a writ of cer-tiorari quashing and setting aside the decision; taken by the respondents to withdraw concessional rate of electricity duty to the petitioner-Institute and also for other consequential reliefs.2. Petitioner-Institute is an educational, research, professional and technical Institute of national importance which is an autonomous body registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860'. The primary object of the petitioner-Institute is to provide educational facilities for training young men and women for career in management and related fields in any form of organization, to improve decision making schemes and ...
Rollwell Forge Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1913; (2010)ILLJ397Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mr. K.M. Paul, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Niral Mehta, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1.2. Rule. Mr. Mehta waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-authorities.3. At the request and with consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.4. In this petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge order dated 30-1-2001 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby, the respondent-authorities have quantified the petitioner's liability towards unpaid provident fund contribution for the period from April, 2001 to January, 2007. By the said order, the respondent-authorities determined that the total unpaid provident fund contribution came to Rs. 37,13,808/-. A separate order under Section 7Q of the Act came to be passed on 11-2-2009 whereby the department has claimed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›