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.
Patel Kanaiyalal Kachrabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to declare that the inaction of the respondent authorities in giving employment to the petitioners to the post of Live Stock Inspectors after providing them the pre-service training for the post of Live Stock Inspectors which is a need based course meaning thereby the candidates are provided training as per the required strength of Live Stock Inspectors, is per-se illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and in violation of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioners on the post of Live Stock Inspectors in view of the fact that the petitioners have passed the pre-service ...
Union of India Through Post Master General and ors. Union of India Thr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.09.2010 in O.A. No.9 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal has quashed and set-aside the show-cause notice and the final order for imposition of the punishment of removal from service, and it is further directed that the original applicant be reinstated in service forthwith with arrears of pay and allowances between the date of his removal and the reinstatement.2. Heard Mr.Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.3. It is undisputed position that before imposing major punishment of removal from service to the respondent herein, no inquiry whatsoever has been held. It is also undisputed position that the matter was at the stage of issuance of chargesheet and reply and the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of debarring the respondent from appearing in the examination for promotion for the post of Postman for the period for three yea...
Mohanbhai Kaljibhai VanzarA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Kartik Pandya, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.2. Present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is a successive bail application.3. Applicant-accused is charged with having committed offences under sections 376 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code for which, FIR, being I-C.R.No.221 of 2010 has been registered with Godhra Taluka Police Station.4. After arguing for some time, learned advocate Mr.Dagli for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application.5. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Present application stands disposed of as withdrawn....
Aman Association. Vs. Ramaniklal Jayantilal Mehta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.03.2009 passed by the learned 7^th Addl. Sr. Judge & JMFC, Bhavnagar in application below Exhibit-54 filed in Special Civil Suit No.32/1996, whereby, the said application came to be allowed.2. The facts in brief are that respondent nos.1 & 2 herein had preferred Special Civil Suit No.32/1996 before the Court below against the petitioner and respondent no.5 herein for declaration and permanent injunction. In March 2005, the petitioner herein filed application Exhibit-45 requesting the Court below to open the stage of filing of Written Statement and to produce registered sale deed of the suit property. However, the said application came to be rejected by order dated 10.04.2005.3. Thereafter, respondent nos.3 & 4 herein preferred application Exhibit-48 for joining them as party-plaintiffs in the suit and for amendment of the plaint. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 18.03.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner s...
State of Gujara and anr. Vs. Mukeshbhai Peshumal Sevkani - M/S. Kamal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 18^th May 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.34 of 1994 for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges levelled against him.2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that on 05^th April 1993 at about 16;15 hours, original complainant-Food Inspector visited the shop of respondent No.2-accused. At that point of time, respondent No.1-accused was present. It is the case of the complainant that he drawn sample of "Swati Brand Double Filtered Oil" from the tin manufactured by the present respondent No.5, which is run by present respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is also the case of the complainant that after following due procedure of sealing, the sample was sen...
Nirma Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Heard Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that the claim for interest expenses of Rs.26,40,09,503/- on Deep Discount Bond has, in fact, been disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order framed by him under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2009, against which the petitioner has preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. Inviting attention to the second proviso to section 147 of the Act, it has been submitted that it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to assess or re-assess such income other than the income involving matters which are subject matters of any appeal, reference or refund, which is chargeable to tax and has esca...
Ramabhai Lakhabhai ChavdA. Vs. Kamalaben Wd/O. Hiralal Hadavbhai by P. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. By way of filing this petition the petitioner has challenged common order dated 8^th January 2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Sessions Judge, Thasra below applications Exhibit 95 and 98 whereby allowed application Exhibit 95 and rejected application below Exhibit 98 in Regular Civil Suit No.74 of 1994.2. Respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff who has filed aforesaid suit for a declaration and permanent injunction qua land bearing Survey No.406 admeasuring 21 acres 19 gunthas situated at village Akalvelu, Taluka Thasra, District Kheda. In the said suit, this Court ordered maintenance of status quo qua the possession.3. Respondent No.1 herein filed application Exhibit 95 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the prayer clauses made in the plaint. The petitioner herein has filed the reply vide Exhibit 98. The Principal Senior Sessions Judge, Thasra by his impugned order allowed applications Exhibit 95 and rejected application below Exhibit 98 in Regular Civil...
Husenmiya RahimuddIn Shaikh. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:"(8) The petitioners, in view of the premises aforesaid beg to pray that:-(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ, or direction, or order directing the Offence Registered as M-Case No.08/2010 with Sanad Police Station(respondent No.2) for the offences punishable U/s. 302 alternatively 306, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, be transferred to CID (Crime) or any other competent Authority, deemed fit, just and proper and further direct that the same may be investigated within stipulated time, on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice.(C) PENDING hearing and final disposal, Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ, or direction or order directing the Offence Registered as M Case No.08/2010 with Sanand Police Station(respondent No.2) for the offences puni...
Natvarbhai Hirabhai Patel and anr. 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 Ist C.R. No. 98/2010, registered with Olpad Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections-406, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned Advocate for the applicants, Shri. Hardik A. Dave, submitted that the charge-sheet is filed and a co-accused is enlarged on bail, and therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on bail, by imposing suitable conditions.3. Heard learned APP for the respondent State, who opposed the grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail, by imposing suitable conditions.5. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.6. In th...
Chimanlal Jivrajbhai Kapuriya. vs. Umakant Kalidas Suthar Thro' Heirs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. VN Raval on behalf of appellant.2. The present appeal is filed under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code by Chimanlal Jivrajbhai Kapuriya challenging judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (JD), Modasa in Civil Suit no. 136/1989 decided on 26/5/2003. The Civil suit was preferred by landlord under provision of Bombay Rent Act. 3. The suit has been allowed by Trial Court while fixing standard rent of suit premises Rs. 200/- and further direction has been issued against present appellant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff with accruing rent of Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. 6/7/1985 till date of vacating premises. Against aforesaid judgment and decree, Civil Appeal no. 17/2003 was preferred by tenant before 3^rd Joint District Judge, Modasa under provision of section 29 of Bombay Rent Act, which appeal has been dismissed on 12/5/2009 vide exh 107. 4. Against aforesaid judgment and order passed by Appellate Court, present Second Appeal is preferred by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »