Gujarat Court August 2009 Judgments
In Re: Idea Cellular Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: [2009]96SCL352(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred for seeking sanction to the Scheme of Demerger of Idea Cellular Ltd., (petitioning-demerged company) and Idea Cellular Towers Infrastructure Ltd. (resulting company). The Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of demerger is at Annexure D for which the prayer is made for sanction.2. It appears that vide order dated 18-4-2009 read with order dated 28-4-2009 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 171/09 for consideration of Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of demerger, the meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors, and unsecured creditors were ordered to be held. Thereafter, all the meetings have been held and the Chairman at the meeting has filed reports. The reports show that the Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Demerger has been sanctioned by the requisite majority of all equity shareholders present and voting at the meeting as well as secured creditors and so far as the unsecured creditors are concerne...
Tag this Judgment!Aher Praful Meram Chhaiya and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2298
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh on 29-1-2002 in Sessions Case No. 134 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Judge convicted original-accused No. 2-Praful Meram Chhaiya and original-accused No. 4-Dilip Meram Chhaiya for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short 'B.P. Act') and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short 'R.I.') for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment (S.I.) for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for seven days for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the B. P. Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By virtue of the impu...
Tag this Judgment!Muktaben Mohanjibhai Solanki and anr. Vs. Jagdishbhai Devrajbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj172
ORDERAbhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Mr. Utpal M. Panchal, learned Counsel states that he has now been engaged by the respondent in place of Mr. D.R. Dalal, who was representing the respondent earlier, and has filed his Vakalatnama in the Registry today. Mr. Utpal M. Panchal, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.2. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 7-3-2009 passed below application at Exh.42 in Regular Civil Suit No. 595 of 2005 by the learned 4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat, whereby the said application filed by the respondent (original defendant) for amendment in the written statement has been allowed.3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from a perusal of the averm...
Tag this Judgment!Vinubhai @ Daghiyo Himmatbhai Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ645
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhavnagar on 24.09.2003 in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2002, whereby the appellant, who was original accused in the said case came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the appellant accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and S.I for four months and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He has challenged the impugned order recording his conviction and sentence by preferring this appeal.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Haribharthi Lalbharthi was serving as watchman at Crematorium, situated...
Tag this Judgment!Kantibhai Valjibhai Shah Vs. Kokilaben Wd/O. Haribhai Ambalal Patel an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2416
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala on behalf of appellants, learned advocate Mr. T. P. Satta for learned advocate Mr. A.V. Trivedi appearing for respondent No. 7-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., learned advocate Ms. Renu Singh for learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani appearing for respondents-claimants.2. The appellant being a owner of vehicle-Visat Travels-a partnership firm through its partner challenging common award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana in respect to Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 426 of 1986 and 427 of 1986, Exh.135,decided on 18/1/1993.3. Brief facts of present appeals are as under:3.1 The deceased Haribhai Ambalal was driving scooter No. GAL-3614 and deceased Babubhai Ambalal was a pillion rider of that scooter and both of them were going from Shertha to Kalol on 11/5/1986. The scooter was being driven by Haribhai on correct side of road with moderate speed and when scooter reached ...
Tag this Judgment!Patni Dhanjibhai Saybabhai Vs. Patni Mohanbhai Saybabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2486
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned Counsel for the respondent waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or an appropriate writ or order, quashing and setting aside order dated 1-8-2009 rendered by the learned District Judge, Patan in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Patan, dated 20-1-2004, in Regular Civil Suit No. 138 of 1992, has been dismissed.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner (original defendant in the suit) and the respondent (original plaintiff) are real brothers. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 138 of 1992 in the trial Court against the petitioner and others, for partition of the suit land, bearing Survey Nos. 1479 and 1482, situated at village Aghar, Taluka and District, Patan, on...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj190
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more t...
Tag this Judgment!Virlkumar Natvarlal Patel Vs. Kapilaben Manilal Jivanbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj184
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. ADMIT. Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1, who is the main contesting party. Though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 have refused to accept the notice. However, the main contesting party is respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Appeal From Order is taken up for final hearing today.3. Heard Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -original defendant No. 5 and Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff at length and perused the impugned order as well as Paper-Book supplied by the learned advocates.4. Present Appeal From Order under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Chetan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Government of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2495
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Considering the scope of controversy, the petition is taken up for final disposal today. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 authority are directed to waive service for respective respondents.2. The petitioner Co-operative Society is challenging notification No. masal/jaman/jahernamu/v. 1783 dated 17-5-2008 issued by District Development Officer whereby the village of the petitioner-Society has been classified to fall under Class 'A', as being contrary to provisions of Rule 81 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (the Rules).3. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned notice dated 15-4-2008 and letter dated 24-4-2008 are bad in law and so is the notification (order) dated 17-5-2008 issued by District Panchayat categorizing Village Ghuma within Class 'A' as against Class 'C'. That the land of the petitioner-Society falls within an area which is beyond the City of Ahmedabad as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Director of Income-tax (investigation) Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Guj)213; [2009]319ITR292(Guj)
M.D. Shah, J.1. This revision under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) is taken out by the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Unit-I(1), Ahmedabad, against the order dated April 6, 2009, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2009 filed by the present respondent No. 2 under Section 451 of the Code.2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present revision are that a complaint was filed by respondent No. 2, Kirtilal Dayaljibhai Thakkar, before Karanj Police Station against his employee, Shri Shailesh alias Sagar Dilipbhai Khadgi, inter alia, alleging that the said Shri Shailesh ran away with cash amounting to Rs. 42.50 lakhs out of Rs. 50 lakhs withdrawn from his current account lying with Shri Vinayak Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kalupur. Pursuant to the said complaint, offence was registered as Crime Register Nos. 1-48 of 2009 and investigation started. During th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »