Gujarat Court January 2011 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.
Hasmukhrai Khelshanker Thaker. Vs. Indiana Ophthelmic.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The petitioner/original plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Misc. Appeal No.75/1996 on 19^th April 1997, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned 1^st Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Surendranagar below an application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.151/1994 on 30^th September 1995.2. Mr.Ashwin Bhatt, the learned advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the petitioner. He is, however, not present when the matter is called out on two different occasions. Mr.Anuj Trivedi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent is present. He has submitted that in view of the amendment in Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Revision Application is not maintainable.3. Considering the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, the Court is of the view that the present Civil Revision Application is filed against ...
Sonalben Manilal MakwanA. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Heard Mr. Satyen B Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 4, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Dharmesh D. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.5.2. It is submitted by Mr. Satyen B. Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner that by way of an advertisement, 259 posts were advertised for appointment of Vidya Sahayak. The petitioner is physically disabled and as per provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, 3% reservation should be given to physically disabled persons. 3. Therefore, out of 259 posts, eight posts should have been reserved for physically disabled persons. It is contended that instead of eight posts, the respondents have filled-in seven posts in the said category and the petitioner has not been given appointment. It is further submitted that certain irregularities...
Sonwane Rohini and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:"(A) Your lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition and be further pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to direct Surat Municipal Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioners as permanent teachers at Suman High School Nos.5 and 6 run by Surat Municipal Corporation "And further be pleased to direct the State Government to allow Surat Municipal Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioners by regularizing reservation of the posts occupied by the petitioners;"(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to relieve the petitioners and continue their services at Suman High School Nos.5 and 6 as teachers;(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, th...
Chatur @ Satish Gordhanbhai Solanki. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. K.P.Raval waives service of rule on behalf of respondent- State. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. Applicant is in jail since 26.8.2010.2. In addition to the above, he drew my attention tot he nature of allegations in the complaint which only disclose offence punishable under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The offence under Sections 376 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were added later on. He drew my attention to the statement of the girl recorded by the I.O on 24.8.2010 to contend that there were friendly relations between the applicant and the girl.4. Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I-155/2010 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to follow...
Chavda Kamlesh Ghanshyambhai. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Notice. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Notice for the respondents.2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order to quashed and set aside the impugned communication/letter dated 06.12.2010 passed by the present respondent authorities at Annexure-D to this petition.(B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the present respondent authorities to give the appointment to the present petitioner on the post of Asst. Police Sub Inspector (unarmed) w.e.f. 28.11.2010 with all consequential benefit to which the present petitioner is entitled too.(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships may kindly be please to direct the present respondent authorities to give the appointment to the present petitioner to the post of Asst. Poli...
Janta Automobiles Through Partner Abdul Rehman Ahmedbhai, Vs. Bharat S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Pursuant to order dated 24.1.2011, learned advocate Mr.Panchal has filed an affidavit of one Abdul Raheman Ahmedbhai Sheth, wherein he has tendered unconditional apology for inadvertent mistake committed in taking out Xerox copy of the document for the purpose of filing the same at Annexure-F (collectively). It is specifically mentioned in the affidavit that "I further say that I would not have got any advantage, neither I have been at a more advantageous position in the facts of my case by not annexing the two pages of the Partnership deed at Annexure-F (Collectively) at page no.23." Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court to page No.24 wherein the name of all four partners are set out. Learned advocate submitted that if at all he wanted to suppress information regarding names of the partners, he would not have produced page No.24.1.1 In view of that, the unconditional apology is accepted.1.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has produced complete ...
State of Gujarat Through Principal Secretary. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Nayak an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 21/4/2010 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12407 of 2000, whereby the petition has been allowed and the impugned resolution of the Government is quashed and set aside and it is directed to pay pay-scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 with effect from 1/1/1996.2. Heard Mr. NJ Shah, Ld. AGP for the appellant and Mr. Rathod, Ld. Counsel, upon the advance copy, for the respondent no. 1.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the respondent no. 1 original petitioner was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 in capacity as Surveyor and, therefore, the equivalent pay-scale in the revision would be Rs.4500-125-7000, which was sanctioned. 4. He submitted that the grant of pay-scale to the respondent original petitioner of Rs.2200-4200 when he joined the service on 1/9/1993 was erroneous and by mistake of the Corporation and, therefore, the Ld. Single Judge has erroneously quashed the ...
Sapara Shankarbhai Ramubhai and anr. Vs, State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. RULE. Learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The offences alleged against them are punishable under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the maximum punishment prescribed under the law is of three years imprisonment. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners may be released on suitable conditions.2. Considering the above submissions, I find that the petitioners are required to be released on bail, pending trial. However, considering the fact that they are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, in the bird Sanctuary of Nal Sarovar, they should be kept out of the said area to prevent future repetition of such incidents, till the trial is over. Under the circumstances, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Ranagadh Round Crime NO. 1 of ...
Mukeshbhai Khemabhai Nai. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Patan, in Sessions Case No.47 of 2003, convicting appellant-Mukeshbhai Khemabhai Nai-original accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 120(B), 452, 506(2) of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and original accused No.2-Babubhai Lallubhai Patel-, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2006, for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120(B) of IPC. Original accused No.1-Mukeshbhai Khemabhai Nai has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2005, whereas accused No.2- Babubai Lallubhai Patel has preferred Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively in this judgment.2. Accused No.1 was punished as under:-(1) For offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, SI for 6 months;(2) For offence punishable under Section 120(B) of IP...
Dhanlaxmi Rameshchandra Shah Thr'Poa Bhadreshbhai R Shah. vs. Hasmukhl ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Since common issue is involved in these Civil Revision applications, the same are heard and being disposed of together by this common judgment and order.2. Civil Revision Application No.193 of 2002 is filed by the applicant / original decree holder challenging the impugned order passed by the Executing Court on 05/05/2000 whereby the Execution Petition being Special Darkhast No.5 of 1984 was dismissed.3. Similarly, Civil Revision Application No.194 of 2002 is filed by the applicant / original decree holder challenging the impugned order dated 05/05/2000 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Petition being Special Darkhast No.6 of 1984, whereby the said petition was dismissed.4. Civil Revision Applications No.193 and 1994 of 2002 were admitted and Rule was issued on 03/12/2003.5. Heard Mr.B P Dalal, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr.Vimal Patel, learned Advocate for the opponent.6. The short point involved in these Civil Revision Applications, is that a compromise decree...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »