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.
Manishkumar Dineshbhai Rathod. Vs. State of Gujaart.
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 Prohibition C.R. No. III-1453/2010, registered with Chikhli Police Station, District : Navsari, for the offences punishable under Sections-66(1)(b), 65(a)(e), 116(2) and 99 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 tribal, 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 PROHIBITION C.R. No. III-1453/2010, registered with CHIKHLI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT...
Anas Abdul Rashid MachiswalA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. As all the appeals involve common question of law and arise from the common judgment rendered in POTA Case No. 7 of 2003 and 9 of 2003, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is pertinent to note that Criminal Appeal Nos. 1148 of 2006, 1149 of 2006, 1150 of 2006, 1151 of 2006 and 1155 of 2006 are preferred by the appellants who are convicted by the Special [POTA] Court and sentenced under Section 3[1] of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 ["POTA" for short] to undergo RI for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; under Section 3[3] of POTA to undergo RI for a period of eight years and fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; under Section 4 read with Sec.3[3] of the POTA to undergo RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The ...
Panchmahal Steel Limited. Vs. Ashokkumar Omprakash ArorA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Mr.Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that he has no objection if the appellant is ready to comply with the provisions of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act in place of reinstatement until final disposal of the Special Civil Application.2. Whereas, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant is ready to comply with the provisions of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act in lieu of the reinstatement.3. We find that as the Special Civil Application itself is pending, even if the interim relief is to be modified, both the parties can approach before the learned Single Judge for modification of the interim order.4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission withdraw the appeal with a view to approach the learned Single Judge to modify the interim relief.5. Permission granted. Disposed of as withdrawn....
Viom Networks Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Principal Secretary an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. This petition challenges orders dated 20-12-2010 and 27-12-2010 passed by the Deputy Collector, Junagadh and Chief Officer, Manavdar Municipality (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) respectively directing the petitioner to remove telecom tower.2. The facts in short are that in pursuance of an understanding between the petitioner and owner of land situated at revenue survey No.3/2, plot No.3 admeasuring 297.28 sq.mtrs to install telecom tower in the Municipal limits of Manavadar Municipality, the petitioner applied for no objection certificate from the respondent No.4 which has been granted on payment of demand draft of Rs.45,000/- on certain conditions. Thereafter, telecom tower was installed and it has been working for the last eight months. However, on 26-9-2010, the respondent No.3 issued a notice to the land owner stating that NA permission had been granted to the land in question but since telecom tower has been permitted to be constructed now, breach of condition Nos.1,22 and 23 o...
Shabahanibibi Jamalji NagorwalA. Vs. Heirs of Jamalji Ahmdji Ramshiyaw ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The party in person Mr. PM Shah power of Attorney Holder of applicant heirs of Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala original defendant tenant is not remained present today, though, on 23/12/2010, following order has been passed by this Court:1.1 Mr. Paresh M. Shah not party in person being a Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala, who has filed present Civil Revision Application no. 1871/2010 under provisions of Bombay Rent Act.2. The present Civil Revision Application is preferred by heirs of Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala original defendant Tenant. The heirs of Jamalji Karimji Nagorwala are Subhanabibi Jamalji Nagorwala, Mohmmad Sarif Jamalji Nagorwala, Yususfbhai Jamalji Nagorwala, Ayubbhai Jamalji Nagorwala, Ismailji Jamalji Nagorwala, Ibrahim Jamalji Nagorwala, Yakub Jamalji Nagorwala, Faruk Jamalji Nagorwala, Siddiq Jamalji Nagorwala, Rajjak Jamalji Nagorwala appeared as petitioners.3. Party in person Mr. PM Shah pointed out to this Court that he is being a Power of Attorney Holder of aforesaid petitioner...
Star Ice Factory. Vs. Deputy Engineer.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging a communication dated 29.11.2010, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C to the petition. The petition is filed on 29.12.2010. It is taken up for hearing only on 18.1.2011. For the first time on that day also, seasoned counsel like Mr.Hashim Qureshi did not make available for perusal a copy of the order which he wanted to rely upon and, therefore, the matter was adjourned for today.2. From the petition and annexure which are produced, it is clear that the petitioner is trying to linger the proceedings and is avoiding evil day. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.5966 of 2010 with Special Civil Application Nos.5969 to 5971 of 2010 and obtained order on 14.7.2010, that is, almost six months before today and he made a statement before this Court that the petitioner will approach before the appropriate authority against the grievance voiced in the present petitions. The petitioner was gra...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nadimhusen Ahemadbhai Ghori and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The present First Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 12/10/2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (A), Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara in Order below Exh-6 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1481/2008 awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the original claimants with running interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realization by way of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for "No Fault Liability".2. Having heard Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original Opponent No.3 New India Assurance Company Ltd., as the impugned order is passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by which the Tribunal has awarded interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the present appeal is not entertained. 3. However, it is observed that deposit of any amount pursuant to the said order, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the...
Mohamad Samsher Saiyed Mohmad Safeda Saiyed. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
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 29.1.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No.111 of 2007 by the learned 6^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for imprisonment of life, has filed this application, praying for suspension of sentence and to enlarge him on regular bail during the pendency and final disposal of the above numbered criminal appeal.4. We have heard Mr. GP Baghel, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. LB Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application so also the impugned judgment and order and the set of evidence supplied along with this application...
Lutim Pharma Pvt.Ltd.-Thro' Neeraj Joshi and Ors. vs. Meteoric Exim Pv ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The applicants have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings and the Private Criminal Complaint Case No.1304 of 2010 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad.2. On 23.12.2010, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing rule and granting ad-interim relief, passed the following order:1. Mr.Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the amount involved in the present matter is approximately Rs.1 Lac (Rupees One Lac only) and to show the bonafide event the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the said amount with the registry of this Court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners.2. Though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, RULE, returnable on 17/1/2011. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is directed to be continued till final...
Jignesh Ramanlal Soni. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Present application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for releasing him on regular bail in connection with CR No.I-06 of 2010 registered with DCB Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506(2) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard Mr.Yogesh Lakhani, learned senior counsel with Mr.Pravin Gondaliya, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.3. Mr.Lakhani has submitted that investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. He has contended that there is no prima-facie case against the present applicant. Even nothing is recovered or discovered from the present applicant. He has also contended that other main accused are also released on bail by this Court. He, therefore, contended that looking to the parity also, present applicant is required to be released on bail.4. As against this, Mr.Jani, learned Addit...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »