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.
State of Gujarat. Vs. Chimanbhai @ Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned advocate appears and states that H.L. Patel, Advocates has received instructions to appear on behalf of the respondents-accused but shall file its appearance/note of appearance representing the respondents-accused within a period of one week. Therefore, service is complete.2. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.3. By filing instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (`the Act' for short), the applicant has prayed to condone delay of 19 days caused in filing Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2010.4. Having heard Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned advocate for the respondents and on perusal of the averments made in the application which have remained uncontroverted and also the celebrated principles governing discretionary exercise of power conferred under Section 5 of the Act, so also considering the reported decisions of the Hon'ble Supr...
Gujarat Electricity Board Through Paschim Gujarat Vij
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Gondal in application Exhibit-82 filed in Special Civil Suit No.25/2001 dated 22.06.2009, whereby, the said application came to be rejected.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.25/2001 against the petitioner-Company praying for a declaration and permanent injunction that the respondent had not committed any theft of electricity and that the petitioners were not entitled to recover any amount from the respondent in pursuance of the supplementary bill issued by the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioners filed its written statement at Exhibit-19.3. It is the case of the petitioners that on account of certain unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners could not cross-examine the respondent and lead evidence in its defence. Consequently, the trial Court closed both the rights of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners prefe...
Dayama Mohammad Ezaz Sultan Mohammad. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I-19/2010 with Bodeli Police Station, Dist: Narmada, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that charge is filed and a duty performed by the applicant was supervised by the higher officer and entries were made in rojmel. Besides, the trial is likely to take considerably long time and, therefore, by imposing suitable conditions the applicant be enlarged on bail.4. Heard learned APP for the respondent State who opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and pun...
Dharmshibhai Gandubhai. Vs. State of Gujarat Thro Executive Engineer a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The present appeals arise against the common judgement and order dated 13.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the concerned Special Civil Application, whereby the petitions have been allowed and the award of the Labour Court is set aside.2. We have heard Mr.Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge was more guided by the aspects of delay and it has been submitted that even if the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge is considered for the breach of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), there is no consideration whatsoever by the learned Single Judge for the breach of sections 25G & H, which has been found by the Labour Court. It was therefore submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court even if maintained on the said aspects, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be interfer...
Rajnikant A. Potnis. Vs. National Textiles Corporation (Gujarat) Ltd. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This application has been preferred to revive the Misc. Civil Application No. 2285 of 2010 preferred by the applicant.2. Mr. Saurabh Mehta, learned advocate for the opponent opposed this application and stated that pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2010 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 2285 of 2010, principal amount is paid to the applicant. However, Mr. Sood, learned advocate for the applicant has invited attention to the directions issued to the respondent in the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4260 of 1992 which reads as under:The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner all his legitimate dues, with interest as specified in the above cited direction, as if the petitioner has retired from the service on reaching the age of superannuation, forthwith,. The parties to abide by the above cited decision. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.3. The applicant has preferred application being Misc. Civil A...
M K Malek. Vs. Divisional Controller.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner second party-workman in Reference (I.T.) No.113 of 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 05.12.2009, rejecting the reference of the workman for the reason stated there under.2. It was the case of the workman that he was working as a Head Mechanic in Padra depot of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and he has received charge-sheet on 10.06.1993, containing charge that as a Head Mechanic he has to do the needful and rectify defects of buses which were notified to him by bus drivers for the buses allotted to the depot. Charge-sheet was replied and the inquiry was conducted. The punishment of dismissal came to be imposed by order dated 27.01.1995. The workman carried the said order of dismissal into appeal which is known as First Appeal in service regulation. The appeal was allowed partly...
G.S.R.T. Corporation. Vs. Pukhrajji Hiralal Soni,barmera and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Present First Appeal, under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant original opponent No.2 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Judgement and Award dtd.31/7/1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 74 of 1984, by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition awarding a total sum of Rs.1,45,750 towards compensation to the claimants and holding the driver of the ST Bus negligent to the extent of 40% and driver of the Jeep Car negligent to the extent of 60%.2. That in a vehicular accident between ST Bus and Jeep Car which took place on 12/2/1984, one Shankarlal Soni died and therefore, the original claimants being his heirs preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 74 of 1984 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Palanpur claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000. That on appreciation of evidence the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the driv...
Lakdhirsinh Ramsinh (Rambha) Zala - Thro' Dharmendra R Zala. vs. State ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. RULE. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Present application is taken out with a request for temporary bail for a period of 15 days, in connection with C.R. No. I-61/2008, filed before Halvad Police Station.2. The applicant is arrested in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This application is taken out on the ground that the minor son of the applicant has been operated upon, since he was suffering from Congenital Mitral Valve Stenos is. It is stated in the application and it also comes out from the hospital papers, annexed with the application, that the minor son of the applicant was admitted in the hospital on 10.01.2011, and thereafter, he has been operated upon.3. Earlier, by an order dated 06.12.2010, the applicant was granted temporary bail for a period of 15 days.4. Today, Mr. M.K. Pujara, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the presence o...
Mahesh Chimanlal JariwalA. Vs. Appropriate Authority Under Pc and Pndt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.A.D.Oza for the petitioners.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners seeks permission to produce a document dated 14.09.2010 as page No.52A, a copy of which is given to learned Advocate Mr.Shah for the respondent. Permission is granted.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to page No.81. It is a communication dated 28.09.2010 issued by the Appropriate Authority, PNDT Act, 1994 and Chief District Health Officer, wherein it is stated the petitioners are found to have violated Sections 4(3) and 5(1) and Rules 9(1), 9(4) 9(7) and 13. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the District Advisory Committee in its proceedings drawn on 24.09.2010, i.e. just prior to issuance of the aforesaid communication dated 28.09.2010, wherein this Appropriate Authority Dr.N.J.Patel, Chief District Health Officer was himself present, has reorded in Agenda No.2 Resolution No.2 that, "what is noticed by the District Advisory Committee i...
Ashok Nagjibhai SariyA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Rule. Mr. learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I 43/2010 with Mendarda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that charge sheet is filed. He further submits that the applicant has roots in the society, will not flee from justice and will cooperate with the investigation as and when called for. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the statement of victim dated 18.09.2010 reveals about love affairs and the victim had gone at her instance with the applicant and, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.4. Heard learned APP for the respondent State.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »