Gujarat Court July 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.
Surendrapal Singh Chawla Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1905
ORDERAfter the afore referred order was signed, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Bharat Jani, has submitted that interim relief operating in favour of the applicant till date be continued for a further period of six weeks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that appeal is dismissed, request is rejected....
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj159
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2008 of the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by the present appellant- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.S.N.L.') challenging the Government Resolutions dated 4.5.2007 and 25.4.2008 in relation to the restoration charges and rental charges to be levied by the local authorities like, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations from B.S.N.L. and other service providers to lay down their telephone cables under the lands belonging to the local authorities.2. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petitions after giving following directions:25. In view of the above, following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:A) The petitioners may approach before the concerned authority under Section 15 of the Act for final quantification of the amount of charges to be collected as prescribed by the Government Resolution annexure-A.B) If such an app...
Ranuj Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1900
Anant S. Dave, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and Rules made thereunder is challenged by the petitioner-Bank, is filed by the petitioner-Bank, a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The challenge in this petition is the order dated 31st January, 2007/ 1st February, 2007 passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (at Annexure 'F' to the petition) and order dated 23rd April, 2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 26 of 2007 (at Annexure 'T' to the petition) as well as the order dated 6th October, 2008, passed by the respondent No. 1 (at Annexure 'V to the petition) with further prayer to confirm the Resolution passed by the petitioner-Society for amending its bye-laws in its Annual General Meeting dated 22nd July, 2006 (at...
Laljibhai Amratlal Thakkar and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ565; (2009)3GLR2361
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the above Criminal Revision Applications are directed under Section 397(2) read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the same judgment and order dated 2-2-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1 of 1996 and 2 of 1996. Both the applicants of the above Criminal Revision Applications, being accused of Criminal Case No. 465 of 1987 came to be prosecuted by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court of Vadodara for the offence punishable under Section 2(1a)(a)(b)(c)(m), Section 7(iv), Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Vide judgment and order dated 19th January, 1996, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Vadodara, convicted both the applicants being accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7(i), 16(1) and under Sections 7(ii) and 16(1) and each of the accused came to be sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs....
Aman Piyush Khanna, thro' Father and Guardian Piyush Krishna and 4 Ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2382
Akil Kureshi, J.PREAMBLE1. In this group of petitions, though grievances raised in all petitions are not identical, they all pertain to the procedure for admissions to Medical and Paramedical Professional Courses for the academic year 2009-2010. These admissions are governed by Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2009(here-in-after referred to as 'the Admission Rules of 2009'). Since different facets of the Admission Rules of 2009 are involved in all the petitions and in some of the petitions some of the Rules are also under challenge, we find it convenient to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment.FACTUAL ASPECTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL2. In Special Civil Application No. 5599/2009, the petitioners have questioned the policy of the State Government to permit the students who have passed 12th standard in Science Stream in previous years also to compete for the Medical and Paramedical seats admissions to...
Hemantbhai Karshandas Leuva Vs. Bhartiben Ratilal Leuva and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2294
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 12-1-2009 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below Exh. 17 in Civil Suit No. 871 of 2007.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as emerging from the material on record are that, one Menaben Maganlal executed a registered Will on 26-7-1994. She then expired on 27-9-2005. The petitioner, who is the original-plaintiff, moved an application for obtaining probate under the Will by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 548 of 2005, wherein the respondents were the opponents. In the said application for probate, the petitioner sought certain reliefs which could not have been prayed for and as the respondents (original opponents) objected to it by filing a reply, the Court converted the said miscellaneous application into a suit, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 871 of 2007, under Rule 201 of the Ahme...
Pathiath Babu Rajendran (Since Deceased) Gowari Rajendran and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1794
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all these four petitions and since they are heard together, the same are being disposed off by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have prayed for in all these four petitions for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 20.01.2005 and 23.02.2007 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board ('IPAB' for short) as being illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 and also violative of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also prayed for stay against the implementation, operation and execution of the above impugned orders.3. This Court has issued notice on 18.04.2007. The order of status-quo was passed on 27.04.2007. On 15.02.2008, parties were directed to complete their pleadings at the earliest and all four cognate matters were directed to be heard together.4. All these four petitions are arising as a result of the orders date...
Sidi Muslim Jamat Bilali Vs. Kasamsha Hajisha Sotiayara
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj166; (2009)3GLR2260
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Veraval below an application Ex.46 dated 10.4.2003 in Regular Civil Suit No. 509 of 1999 and the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Veraval in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2003 dated 13.7.2004. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration that in view of the order passed below Ex.57 dated 27.6.2003 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Veraval, proceeding of Regular Civil Suit No. 509 of 1999 stands concluded and the learned Civil Judge cannot act upon the counter claim of the respondent preferred on 27.6.2003 in Regular Civil Suit No. 509 of 1999.2. This Court has issued notice on 2.8.2004 and granted interim relief in terms of para 13(D) of the petition whereby the operation, implementation and execution of the judgment and order passed by the lear...
ibrahim Ismail Achha and anr. Vs. Natwarbhai Jivanbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Guj27; (2009)2GLR1691
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Mr. Arpit A. Kapadia, learned Advocate, for Ms. Shaili A. Kapadia, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided today.2. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 22-6-2009 passed by the District Court, Surat, whereby cross-objections filed by the respondent (original defendant) vide Exh. 13, have been allowed.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, emerging from a perusal of the material on record are, that the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs, preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 2008 before the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Olpad, seeking injunction against the respondent-original defendant. Along with the suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction, vide Exh. 5, was al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›