Gujarat Court January 2011 Judgments
Galjibhai Haribhai Gurjar. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. RULE.2. Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. The applicant convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 2.11.2007 rendered in Sessions Case No. 191 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Himagnater at Idar, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days to enable him to search out his wife and children whose whereabouts are not known and also to render financial assistance to his father as there is nobody to look after him.5. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitanya Girdharalal Gandhi. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The present application is for condo nation of delay of 531 days in preferring appeal against the order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.4117 of 2009.2. We have heard Mr.Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the applicant on the aspect of condo nation of delay. In order to see that the merits of the appeal may not be frustrated, we have also heard Mr.Acharya on merits of the Letters Patent Appeal.3. As such, the delay is of 531 days, and such a long delay cannot be leniently viewed. If the contents of the application for condo nation of delay are considered, there is no sufficient explanation coming up to exercise the discretion for condo nation of delay, and vague and general statements have been made in the application for condo nation of delay and, therefore, as such, delay does not deserve to be condoned.4. Apart from the above, if the merits of the LPA is taken into consideration, the contention raised by the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Jogindra R Anand, Partner of Anand Trading Company. Vs. Ganaram B Rath ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 30^th May 2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.188 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 by which the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the opponent No.1-original accused of the charges levelled against him.2. The short facts of the complainant is that the present appellant-original complainant is a partner of Anand Trading Company and is dealing in business of Tea. It is the case of the complainant that the opponent No.1-original accused originally serving with him, but subsequently has started his own business in the name and style of "Mahadev Sales Agency". The opponent No.1-original accused was the sole proprietor of the said Mahadev Sales Agency. The opponent No.1-accused used to purchase t...
Tag this Judgment!M D KansagarA. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"6. The petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-(A) direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner at par with Shri J.J. Raval, in the matter of fixation of seniority for the purpose of promotion on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, and(B) direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, considering 4.6.1979 as the date of joining service as Supervisor, and(C) pending admission and disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from promoting any person on the post of De...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Laljibhai. Vs.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. RULE.2. Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. The applicant convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2008 rendered in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Jamnagar at Khambalia, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days to enable him to find out a suitable match for his daughter who has reached to a marriageable age.5. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet forwarded by the jail authority along ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandubhai Bachubhai Patani (Devipujak) and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. RULE. Learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that he does NOT PRESS this petition qua petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. Rule is DISCHARGED qua the said petitioners.2. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in the entire complaint, no overt act is attributed to petitioner No.1. He has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is over and the charge-sheet is also filed.3. Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter and considering that the trial is unlikely to complete shortly and since charge-sheet is also filed, I find this is a fit case for granting bail. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-228/2010, registered with DEESA CITY POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing bond of Rs. 10,0...
Tag this Judgment!Kirtiben Someshwarbhai Dave. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Rule. Mr.K.P.Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Though Respondent No.3 is served, none appears for him.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:"A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorary or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned order of transferring the petitioner from Sojitra to Limdi and the decision of the respondent no.2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, non-application of mind and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondent to continue the petitioner at Sojitra.B. Pending admission and final disposal of the petition be pleased to suspend further implementation and operation of the order of transfer from at Ann-A and the decision of the respondent no.2 at Annx-E/1 and direct the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal @ Gopi Harman. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Rule. Mr. LB Dabhi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.2. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.3. The applicant convict prisoner, who, by judgment and order dated 30.6.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No.1 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Anand has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment of life, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days, to enable him to render financial assistance to his family members.4. Having heard Mr. LB Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and upon perusal of the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet, no case is made out for grant of temporary bail to the applicant. Therefore, the application lacks merit and deser...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Dilipbhai Somabhai. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Rule. Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Present application is filed by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to suspend the sentence imposed upon him vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05^th January 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana, in Special Electricity Case No.09 of 2010 by releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal.3. The learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana, by his judgment and order dated 05^th January 2011 convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed fine of Rs.05,500/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.4. Heard Mr.Dhaval Vakil, learned counsel for the app...
Tag this Judgment!The Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Arfees Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. In this petition, the petitioner-company has made the following prayers :"17.A) The Company Arfees Industries Limited, be wound up by this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956;(B) That the Official Liquidator attached to this Hon'ble Court be appointed as the Liquidator of Arfees Industries Limited, the Company above named with all necessary powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956;[C] Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition the Company be restrained from alienating, dealing with and/or disposing off its properties.D. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Official Liquidator attached to thhis Hon'ble Court be appointed as Provisional Liquidator of Arfees Industries Limited, together with all its assets, property, stock in trade, outstanding, book debts, receivable, papers, documents, vouchers, etc. with all the powers under the Companies Act, 1956;"3. The matters we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »