Gujarat Court October 2010 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.
Indian Air Lines Corporation. Vs. Aniruddh Kunvarji Rao, and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2010
1. Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant submits that Rule is not served to respondent No.4. So far as the Civil Applications are concerned, respondent No.4 is not necessary party as no relief is claimed by the present applicant against respondent No.4 and therefore, she seeks permission to delete respondent No.4 from these Civil Applications.2. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, respondent No.4 is permitted to be deleted only from the Civil Applications.3. Considering the grounds mentioned in the Civil Applications, delay of two days in filing the First Appeals is condoned.4. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.5. Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in each application....
Rsmeshbhai P Raval. Vs. J J Shah or His Successor in Office, Deputy Re ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Mr. Anand Yagnik, learned advocate states that he has entered his appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 4 in this matter. However, due to some difference of opinion with his client respondent no. 4, he urges that he may be relieved from this case as advocate for respondent no. 4. Mr. Yagnik has shown his unwillingness to continue.2. In view of the above request made by Mr. A.J.Yagnik, learned advocate, we permit him to relieve as advocate of respondent no. 4 in this matter....
PravIn @ AshwIn Anandbhai Parmar. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code in connection with FIR being I-C.R.No. 241 of 2009 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad city for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned advocate, Mr.Pathan, for the applicant referred to the paper and submitted that applicant is said to have antecedents but he has been released by Sessions Court twice as well as by High Court twice. Therefore, considering the nature of offence and the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, present application may be allowed.3. Learned APP resisted the application.4. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP and having perused the papers and considering the nature of offence as well as the fact that charge-sheet has now been filed, present application deserves to be allowed.5. Accordingly, present application stands allowed. The applicant is ...
Chandrakant Chhaganlal AdhiyA. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. By means of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 19.7.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot in exercise of power under Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ("Act" for short) whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained in the custody.2. Learned advocate Mr. R.R. Shah representing the petitioner submitted that there was no material available before the detaining Authority to arrive at conclusion that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the smooth supply of essential commodities and it may be resulted in black marketing of such commodities. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner made representation on 13.8.2010 while he was under detention and the representation was forwarded to the detaining Authority but the detaining Authority only transmitted the representation to the State Gover...
Ringspann Elecon (India) Limited and anr. Vs. Ringspann Gmbh.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. The appellants, original opponent Nos.1 and 2 in Civil Misc. Application No.38 of 2010 filed by the present respondent-original applicant in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Anand under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the "Arbitration Act") for urgent interim measures, have approached this Court under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act challenging the judgment and order dated 23.07.2010 passed in said Civil Misc. Application under the provision of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the order being bad, perverse and untenable in the eye of law, the application deserves to be quashed and set aside.2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal deserve to be set out as under.3. The present respondent is referred to hereinafter as the original applicant and the present appellant Nos.1 and 2 are referred hereinafter as opponent Nos.1 and 2 respectively for the sake of convenience. The applicant is a limited compan...
Sheth Subhashbhai Kanchanlal. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. Present application has been preferred by the applicant herein - original petitioner for the following main reliefs:-"6(A) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent authorities to release the salary of the petitioner from November,2007 and to pay the salary regularly till the petitioner attains the age of 62 years pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2008 passed in Application No.48 of 2007 by the Gujarat Affiliated College Service Tribunal by recalling the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.C.A. No.8968 of 2009 with S.C.A. No.4817 of 2009;(B) Alternatively, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the application preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law and on merits in view of the order dated 02.09.2009 passed in S.C.A.No.8968 of 2009 with S.C.A.No.4817 of 2009."2. A grievance, which is voiced in this a...
Jagdishchandra Kirodimal Agrawal. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. The petitioner came to be detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ( "PBM Act" for short) by virtue of order passed by the respondent District Magistrate, Vadodara on 11.8.2010 in exercise of power under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the said Act. The detaining Authority found that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the smooth supply of essential commodities. It may result in black marketing of such commodities, and therefore, he is required to be prevented from pursuing his activities. It further transpires that on 4.2.2010, an inspection was carried out by the team of Supply Officer in order to several irregularities including diversion of commodities for Antyoday Ann Yoja (AAY Scheme) and below poverty line (BPL). Hence, the District Supply Officer has immediately suspended the licence of the petitioner itself for 90 days on 5.2.2010.2. It is further alleged that detenu could not produce any record ...
Surat Electricity Company Limited Now Known as Torrent Power. Vs. Prav ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-management has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29/05/2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Revision Application (I.C.) No. 1/2008 by which the the revisional Court has allowed the Revision Application preferred by the respondent and has held the departmental inquiry illegal and in breach of principles of natural justice.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present petition notice was issued upon the respondent only for the purpose of exploring the possibility of settlement and it is reported that the settlement is not possible. Under the circumstances, this Court is required to consider the present petition on merits.3. Heard Shri Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior advocate appearing with Shri Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Kruti Shah, learned advocate app...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›