Gujarat Court June 2009 Judgments
Karshanbhai Kamabhai Harijan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4613
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. Short but interesting question of law posed for consideration of this Court is that in a case where charge-sheet is not submitted within 90 days / 60 days as the case may be and application for default bail is submitted under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) before the learned Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case or commit for trial and application has been submitted before another Court and during the pendency of such application, before another Court when another application is submitted by the accused under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for default bail before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial and before application for default bail is preferred before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or to commit the case, charge-sheet is filed by the police, whether in that case accused is required to be released on default bail ?2. Fa...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshbhai Dungrabhai Patel Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (Textile Divi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ792Guj
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Navsari dated September 24, 2004 allowing the application Exhibit 13 in T. Application No. 1/2002 of respondent Mill-Company for postponing the proceedings of T-Application No. 1/2002 in view of the proceedings pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR' for short) and order dated May 6, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Surat in Revision Application No. (I.C) No. 25/2004, wherein, the aforesaid order was assailed by the workman and which had been rejected by the Industrial Court confirming the order dated September 24, 2004.3. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under:4. The workman, at the relevant time was serving in the respondent No. 1 Mill Company as a permanent employee from June 1, 1975 in a stamping department as a Clerk and his last drawn salary was Rs. 4462/-. The Mill-Company h...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwinbhai Somabhai Patel and anr. Vs. Nrugendraprasadji Ajendraprasad ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2352
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned Advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 original-defendant No. 1, who is main contesting party so far as the present Special Civil Application is concerned. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 14-5-2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand below application Exh. 167 in Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2008, by which the learned trial Court has allowed the said application submitted by the respondent No. 1 herein original-defendant No. 1 to read the documents as produced vide Exh. 54/1 and to appreciate the same for the purpose of hearing and adjudication of application Exh. 5. At the outset, it is req...
Tag this Judgment!Munnabhai Rajakbhai Vagdani Vs. Minor Aman Munnabhai Vagdani Through H ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1584
M.D. Shah, J.1. This revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of order dated 5-12-2006 passed in Misc. Cri. Appln. No. 79 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mangrol, Junagadh District, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his minor son @ Rs. 750/- per month from the date of application.2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.V. Parmar, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1, Mr. H. R. Prajapati and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 2-State, Mr. K. P. Raval.3. It is submitted by Mr. Parmar that nowhere it has come on record that the petitioner at any point of time had neglected and refused to maintain the minor child Aman Munnabhai Vagdani. It is also submitted that for getting custody of the child, the petitioner has filed Misc. Civil Appln. No. 130 of 2004 under the Guardian and Wards Act before the Addl. District Ju...
Tag this Judgment!H.M.P. Engineers Ltd. Vs. R. Kashi Naidu
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2400
K.M. Thaker, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner-Company has challenged an award dated 10-2-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (L.C.S.) No. 367 of 1985 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the first party-opponent Company M/s. Rali Machines Limited to reinstate present respondent i.e. original second party-claimant and has denied to grant the benefit of back wages. Aggrieved by the said direction requiring reinstatement of the respondent, the petitioner-Company has preferred present petition.2. It appears that at some point of time, after the order of reference was made, the name of the first party (in the reference before the Labour Court) Company got changed to M/s. H.M.P. Engineers Limited and that is how present petition has been filed by the first-party Company in the name and style of M/s. H.M.P. Engineers Limited.3. The short facts involved in the dispute between the parties, and which has given rise to present petition, are as follows:3.1. It appears...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Housing Complex Owner's Asso. Vs. Raiben Wd/o Dhiraj Ugraji and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1710
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This group of petitions has been heard together as they arise out of common order made by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 21.08.2008 in various applications moved before the Tribunal by different persons. The parties have treated the group of petitions bearing Special Civil Application Nos. 12145 of 2008 to 12149 of 2008 as the main matter considering the fact that all the pleadings and the supporting documents are available in the record of Special Civil Application No. 12145 of 2008 and hence, the facts are taken from the said petition.2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12145 of 2008 to 12149 of 2008 is common, namely, Rohini Housing Complex Owners' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Rohini'). Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Raiben wd/o Dhiraji Ugraji, Vihaji Dhiraji and Bachuji Dhiraji are the original land owners of land bearing Block No. 84 of Village Khatraj, Taluka Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Chauhan Harishing Padamsingh a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj142
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavatl for appellant - Insurance Co.2. In this appeal, appellant-Insurance Co. has challenged award parsed by MAC Tribunal, Banaskantha at Palanpur in MACP No. 39 of 2007 dated'7.10.2008 whereby claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,74,500/- being a compensation to legal heirs and representative of deceased with 9% interest.3. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted before this Court that a specific contention was raised in Para. 13 by advocate of Insurance Co., Mr. Soni, after producing insurance policy before claims Tribunal in respect to Jeep No. GJ-8-A-8050 where insurance policy was act policy. Therefore, occupant being a deceased travelling in jeep, who died, therefore, claimants are not entitled any amount of compensation because there was no additional premium paid by owner of vehicle. Relying upon decision of Apex Court in case of Tilak Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in : 2006 ACJ 1441 : AIR 2006 SC 157...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›