Gujarat Court December 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.
Prahalladbhai Mahipatbhai Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDERHeard learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar for the appellant original plaintiff at length and in great detail.Taking into consideration the relief prayed for by the present appellant original plaintiff, the trial court has rightly rejected the injunction application. No case is made out for interference with the order passed by the trial court as the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Hence this appeal from order as well as civil application stand dismissed with no order as to costs.It is needless to say that it is for the petitioner to approach the Corporation or any other appropriate authority if any other remedy is available to him....
New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Bachubhai Tapubhai ChavdA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1.0 Heard. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Obviously, this award is in the nature of an interim award which is subject to adjustment against the award which may be passed in the main claim petition. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by passing the following order:2.0 The entire awarded amount shall be invested in the name of the Nazir of the Tribunal with a Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and on maturity shall be renewed by one year at a time without any further orders in this regard till the disposal of the the main claim petition. The Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be kept with the Nazir of the Tribunal. The quarterly interest that may be accrued on the said deposit shall be paid to the original claimants.3.0 If ultimately the claimant succeeds in the main claim petition, the sai...
Surat Municipal Corporation Vs. Sudhaben Wd/O.Ramanbhai Desai.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prashant G. Desai for appellant and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi for respondent No.2.2. However, none appears for respondent Nos.1/1 and 1/2.3. In Civil Application No.4726 of 1997 also, notice has been served to respondents by direct service, no appearance is filed.4. In this Second Appeal, Regular Civil Suit No.48 of 1985 filed by Mr.R.N.Desai and Mr.R.K.Desai against present appellant Surat Municipal Corporation. The trial Court has passed judgment and decree on 30.3.1993 setting aside two notices issued by appellant dated 17.9.1981 and 5.1.1985 and also declared that these notices are not required to be implemented by present appellant and accordingly, permanent injunction was granted against appellant. However, trial Court has made it clear that this order will not come in the way of Surat Municipal Corporation for implementing Scheme No.6 under Section 68 and 69 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act ( Madhura -Khat...
Dakshaben Nitinkumar Dalal Vs. Nitinkumar Dhanvadan Dalal.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mehul Shah for appellant and learned advocate M.G.Nagarkar for respondent.2. Today, learned advocate Mr.Mehul Shah having written instructions from appellant dated 11.12.2010 permitting the advocate to withdraw present Second Appeal. For that, consent has been given. The letter dated 11.12.2010 addressed by appellant to learned advocate Mr.Mehul Shah is taken on record.3. In view of aforesaid letter and instructions received by learned advocate Mr.Shah, present Second Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn....
Girishbhai Jayshankarbhai Pathak Vs.State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered being CR No.I- 5 of 2010 with A.C.B. Police Station, Surat Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Heard learned Advocate for the APP for the respondent State.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and now the investigation is on the verge of completion, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with first information report registered being C.R. No.I- 5...
K Verma Charitable Trust Throguh Trustee Mahesh Ram Labhaya Vs. Deputy ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. Leave to amend the prayer clause.2. Heard Mr.S.N.Divetia, learned advocate appearing with Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner.3. It is submitted that though the letter dated 30^th July 2010 of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Exemption, Ahmedabad says that copy of reasons recorded for reopening under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been enclosed therewith, in fact, the reasons had not been enclosed. Referring to the order rejecting the objections, it is submitted that the basis for reopening appears to be an order dated 16^th November 2009. It is further submitted that in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the purpose of assessment for the year under consideration, the assessment could not have been reopened after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.4. Having regard to the aforesaid, Issue Notice returnable on 18th January, ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Pareshbhai Batukbhai Oza
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. The State has preferred this application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal recorded by Special Court (Amreli) in Special Case (ACB) No.30 of 1994 decided by judgment and order dated 21.5.2010.2. The case against the respondent was that he demanded and accepted bribe from the original complainant on 2.3.1993 while the respondent was working as a Helper in Gujarat Electricity Board in the Sub-Division at Lathi and, as such, was a public servant.3. From the judgment, it transpires that the complainant has not supported the prosecution case. The panch witness in whose presence the trap was set and completed is not clear on the place of transaction whether it was in the office of the accused or whether it was in the restaurant or somewhere else. The panch witness does not say anything about either the second demand or the acceptance by the accused.4. In this set of uncontroverted facts, the trial Court was justified, in our view, to record an acquittal. Hence, leave to ...
Sarfaraz Yaqub Ahmed Patel Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. Rule. Mr. Parikh, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the State. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is taken up for hearing today.2. This is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Special Atrocity Case No.18 of 2009 dated 25.11.2010 by which the learned Judge has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant was ordered to pay a fine Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for 7 days. Learned Judge was pleased to convict the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo six months S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, further to undergo further S.I. for 7 days. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in def...
Hitesh Manojbhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered being CR No.I- 214 of 2010 with Ramol Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the case is regarding the chain snatching which would not attract the provisions of Section 392 of IPC. He referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vindo Samuel v. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court P. 465 in support of his submission.3. Having heard the learned Advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP and having considered the nature of offence, present application deserves to be allowed subject to the conditions hereinafter.4. Accordingly, present application stands allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. being C.R.No. I-214/2010 registered wi...
M/S K Verma Charitable Trust, Through Trustee, Mahesh Ram Vs.M/S K Ver ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
ORAL ORDER1. Leave to amend the prayer clause.2. Heard Mr.S.N.Divetia, learned advocate appearing with Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner.3. It is submitted that though the letter dated 30^th July 2010 of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Exemption, Ahmedabad says that copy of reasons recorded for reopening under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been enclosed therewith, in fact, the reasons had not been enclosed. Referring to the order rejecting the objections, it is submitted that the basis for reopening appears to be an order dated 16^th November 2009. It is further submitted that in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the purpose of assessment for the year under consideration, the assessment could not have been reopened after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.4. Having regard to the aforesaid, Issue Notice returnable on 18th January, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »