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.
Thakor Mafaji Nagarji. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the impugned order 20.04.2010 passed by the Additional Secretary, Home Department in Externment Appeal No.270 of 2009 dated by which order dated 21.11.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patan is confirmed.2. The above orders have been passed under the provisions of Section 56A and 60 of th Bombay Police Act.3. The petitioner-extern is ordered to be extend from Patan, Mehsana, Banaskantha and Gandhinagar districts for a period of two years by order dated 21.11.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patan.4. Learned advocate for the petitioner while challenging the above orders submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below are illegal and arbitrary to the extent the petitioner is deprived of his livelihood and incidents that have been relied upon were prior to 9 months from the date of passing of the impugned order. The petitioner is a person ready and willing to abide by the...
Arcoy Biorefinery Pvt.Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
This applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicants with the following main prayer :-"[B] Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint being Criminal Case No.1743 of 2010 filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act at Annexure-"A" to the application".2. This Court while issuing notice on 25.06.2010 granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 7(B) of the application.3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that thereafter, the parties have settled their dispute and entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.01.2011. This court noticed the alleged dispute about payment of outstanding dues vis-a-vis interpretion of terms of agreement. The said Memorandum of Understanding reads as under:"This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this 24^th day of January, 2011 at Ahmedabad between M...
Kathad Lakhman and ors. Vs. Amarben Jivabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The petitioners/original defendants/judgment debtors have filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.1.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge(SD), Veraval in Special Execution Application No. 6 of 1997, whereby the objections raised by the petitioners at Exh.11 were disallowed and the judgment debtors No.1,4 and 5 were directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3,30,253.90 ps. on or before 31.1.2003, failing which proper order would be passed against the said judgment debtors.2. This Civil Revision Application was admitted and rule was issued on 4.11.2003. The Court has granted interim relief in terms of para 9(C) of the application.3. At the time of final hearing of this Civil Revision Application, Mr. A.R. Thacker, learned advocate appearing for the respondents/ original decree holders submitted that on the basis of the written communication dated 7.12.2010, which is taken on ...
Dharmapal Devidas Bhesare. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the first information report registered as III.C.R. No. 338/2010, registered with Sagbara Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections-66(b), 65(a)(e) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and the Court in which it is treble, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, by imposing suitable conditions.4. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.5. 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 III.C.R. No. 338/2010, registered with SAGBARA POLICE STATION, on executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) wit...
Bhanubhai Kadvabhai Solanki. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The appellant original accused has filed this Appeal against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 119 of 1994, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the appellant accused guilty (i) for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo SI for 4 (four) month and (ii) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to undergo SI for two months. The learned Judge ordered that all the sentences to run concurrently. On 6.3.1996 the appellant has submitted an application that he is poor and unable to engage lawyer and that he may be provided Advocate from the Legal Aid. The said application of the appellant was treated as Appeal and accordingly treate...
Merabhai Gandabhai Jamod. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. It appears from the papers that vide letter dated 22^nd November 2010, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, has contended that as there were many documents and signatures have to be examined, it will take some time and has contended that it may take time upto 15^th December 2010 to submit report.2. Thereafter, on 28^th December 2010 this Court has passed the following order:"Heard the learned advocate Ms Kruti Shah for the applicant. Mr HL Jani learned APP has produced the report of PSI of Bhavnagar, who is Investigating Officer, wherein, it is submitted by the I.O. that on 20.10.2010 the report of FSL is already submitted to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. Mr Jani has prayed that sealed cover FSL report is required to be called for.3. Hence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar is directed to send the sealed cover FSL report which is produced in CR No. I-10/2010 in connection with the offence registered before the Paliyad Police ...
State of Gujarat. Vs. Hemangini Nitinkumar Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 27^th April 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.01 of 1994 for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them.2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant was serving as Food Inspector. On 22^nd October 1991, the complainant visited the partnership firm of the original accused persons at about 15:00 hours. At that point of time, the accused No.1 was present in the firm. It is the case of the complainant that after giving his identity as Food Inspector, the complainant purchased 600 gms. Nilkanth Branded Besan after paying consideration as sample. It is also the case of the complainant that after foll...
Sandipkumar Pankajbhai Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the charge sheet is filed.2. The applicant is charged with having committed offence sections 363, 366 and 114 of Indian Penal Code for which F.I.R. being I-C.R.No.194 of 2010 has been registered with Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad.3. Learned advocate Ms.Shah for the applicant accused submitted that as per order passed earlier the habeas corpus petition has been disposed of today and the corpus could not remain present as she has been admitted in the hospital as she has received burn injuries. She submitted that she has been residing with somebody else who has also received injury. Therefore she submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, present application deserves to be allowed as now charge sheet has been filed.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Pandya resisted the application and submitted that as it transpires from...
Gappu @ Shahil Lalan Pathan and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Rule. Service is waived. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This application is filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with first information report registered at C.R.No.III-13 of 2011 with Chikhli Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e), 116(2), and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the nature of offences and the punishment prescribed under the Code and the Court in which it is triable, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicants on bail.4. The parties do not press for further reasoned order.5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.III-13 of 2011 with Chikhli Police stati...
Jigneshbhai Chinubhai Patel and anr. Vs. Hareshbhai Pujabhai Prajapati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Mr. Raval, learned counsel for the appellants seek permission to delete respondents nos. 3 to 7. Permission is granted. Respondents nos. 3 to 7 stand deleted from the proceedings.2. ADMIT. Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel waives service of admission on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.3. This petition has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned 5^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 289/2008 dated 30.12.2009, whereby, status-quo was directed to be maintained by both the parties till final disposal of the suit.4. The facts in brief are that the original plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1 and 2 have preferred Special Civil Suit No. 289/2008 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, for the specific performance. However, during the pendency of the said suit, respondents nos. 1 and 2 have also preferred application below Exh. 5 for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »