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.
Gujarat Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Laxmiben Jagubhai Parmar.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order passed below application Exh.15 in Misc. civil Appeal No.35 of 2001 by the learned 2^nd Joint District Judge, Bharuch on 31.07.2001 confirming the order dated 02.06.2001 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Hansot below application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.167 of 2001.2. The petitioner No.1 is Gujarat Electricity Board. However, the said Board is no longer in existence. It is converted into different Companies and necessary amendment in the cause title will have to be made.3. On behalf of the respondent, late Mr. T.S. Nanavati, learned advocate had filed his appearance. After his death, fresh notice is required to be issued on the respondent so as to enable her to engage Counsel of her choice.4. The Court would have issued the notice to the respondent in this matter. However, the present Civil Revision Application is filed against an inter...
Ashrathsingh Kapursingh Thakore (Vaghela). 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.2. The petitioner, by way of this petition, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint, bearing I-C.R. No. 15/10, filed before Palanpur Taluka Police Station, District : Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections-465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The land, with respect to which the complaint is filed in 31.01.2010, was sold in June, 2007.4. I have perused the contents of the complaint, prima facie, considering the same and also the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, in connection with I-C.R. No. 15/10, filed before Palanpur Taluka Police Station, District : Banaskantha, he shall be RELEASED on anticipatory bail, upon his furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one ...
Jandawala Chunilal Ranchhoddas and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The instant application is preferred u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicants seeking regular bail in connection with Radhanpur police station C.R.No.II 126 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506(2) r/w.Section 114 of the IPC.2. Mr.M.B.Rana, learned advocate representing the applicants seek permission to withdraw the bail application qua the applicant No.5 Ramesh Kishanbhai Jandawala. Permission as prayed for is granted.3. For the remaining applicants, viz. applicants No.1 to 4, Mr.Rana, learned advcoate submitted that considering the FIR and the alleged role played by those applicants, they deserve regular bail. It is submitted that earlier the applicants had preferred regular bail application before this Hon'ble Court, but at that time, the investigation was on and chargesheet was not filed and, therefore, reserving the liberty to file bail application after chargesheet is filed, said bail application was not pressed.4. Mr.A.J.Desai, learned APP, rep...
Ramji Board and Paper Mills Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The appellant-assesses has challenged order dated 20^th November, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Excise Appeal No.416 of 2007, whereby the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 ["the Act"], proposing the following thirteen questions stated to be substantial questions of law arising out of the impugned order of the Tribunal:"[I] Whether the appellate Tribunal was justified in imposing pre-deposit condition in a matter which arises out of remand proceedings when on earlier occasion in the same proceedings, the appeal was entertained without pre-deposit condition?[II] Whether the pre-deposit condition is without looking to the facts of the case and earlier orders of Appeal proceedings are considered by the Appellate Tribunal?[III] Whether Tribunal was justified in imposing pre-deposit condition in remand proceedings?[IV] When de-novo proceedings was ordered and the...
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Through Secretary. Vs. Vinodkuma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application No.1016/10, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed for payment of last wages drawn by way of compliance to section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. We have heard Mr.Soni for Mr.Shah for the appellant.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Market Committee after the application received of the workman on 01.12.2009 had orally conveyed for joining the duty and written communication was also addressed on 25.03.2010. It has been further submitted that the Market Committee is ready to reinstate the workman as per the order passed by this Court in the main Special Civil Application. However, the workman did not join the duty. The learned counsel fairly conceded that the aforesaid part of the defence was not placed before the learned Single Judge when the hearing of the Civil Application had taken place and the order was pas...
Gujarat Machinery Manufactures Limited. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Leave to amend the prayer clause.2. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. At the outset, Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant would deposit the amount levied by way of penalty, if not already paid, within a period of 10 days from today.4. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in a Civil Application filed in an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order staying the order of penalty is unwarranted.5. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts of the present case, interest of justice would be served if the interim relief is granted subject to the applicant depositing the entire amount of ...
Valiya Bhalji RathwA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. RULE.2. Mr. R.C.Kodekar, 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. By filing instant application, the applicant convict, who, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 rendered in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Chhota Udepur, Vadodara, has prayed to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days to enable him to perform betrothal ceremony of his daughter, which is scheduled on 26.1.2011.5. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mrs. Nisha M. Parikh, learned Advocate for the applicant convict and Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application. We have also gone through the jail remark sheet submitted by the learned APP.6. Upon perusal of the jail remark sheet, we have no...
Kalpeshbhai Gorsinghbhai SangadA. 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.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a young boy, aged about 18 years. He has no criminal antecedents. In addition to the above, I have also perused the nature of allegations made in the complaint, which are punishable under Sections-457, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter and considering that the trial is unlikely to complete shortly and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, 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-159/2010, registered with LIMDI POLICE STATION, on his furnishing bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that, he shall:(1). not take undue advantage of his libert...
Nagori Ruksana Ahmedkhan. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10060 of 2010, whereby the petition has been dismissed.2. Heard Mr.Thakkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Shah, learned AGP for the respondents.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the original petitioner had secured a very good marks in the written test, but in the viva voce, she was given very less marks and as a result thereof, she has not been included in the select-list. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the candidate has secured more marks in the written test and in the interview, less marks are to be given, special reasons are to be mentioned and as no reasons are coming on record, the action can be said as illegal, but the learned Single Judge did not properly consider the matter. Hence, the appeal.4. As such the scope of judicial scrutiny in a matter of selection process is ...
Muskan @ Poonamben Indrajit Punjabi. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 has refused to accept the service of notice of court for which an affidavit has also been filed.2. Petitioner is wife of respondent No.4. She seeks recovery of maintenance outstanding as per the order dated 25.9.06 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dediyapada in Criminal Misc. Application No.43/04. She has also prayed for transfer of Criminal Misc. Application No.143/06 which pertains to recovery of such maintenance amount.3. In so far as the first prayer of recovery is concerned, the same cannot be entertained in a writ petition before this Court directly. The petitioner has to take steps to execute the order of maintenance in terms of section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.4. However, request of the petitioner for transfer of such proceedings is required to be considered. Firstly, it is stated that the husband has not accepted the notice of the court. Secondly, the petitioner is now residing wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »