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 Through Paschim Gujarat Vij and anr. Vs. Raj ...
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-83 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...
Prajapati Bharatbhai Ishwarbha and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The present application has been preferred for condo nation of delay of 462 days in preferring appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6582 of 1999.2. We have heard Mr.Suthar for Mr. N.K.Majmudar on the aspects of condo nation of delay as well as on merits of the letters patent appeal.3. As such, if the grounds stated in the application for condo nation of delay are considered as it is, we find that the delay is not sufficiently explained, and hence, the delay cannot be condoned.4. However, with a view to see that the merits of the matter does not get frustrated, we have heard Mr. Suthar for Mr. Majmudar on the merits of the letters patent appeal. 5. It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the letters patent appeal, that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the order passed by the another learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9262 of 1994 on 16.06.2...
Thakor Ranchhodji Sedhaji. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Rule. Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Present application is filed by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to suspend the sentence imposed upon him vide order dated 18^th December 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No.25 of 2009 by releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal.3. The learned Sessions Judge, Patan by his judgment and order dated 18^th December 2010 convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two-and-half-years and also impose fine of Rs.05,000/-.4. Heard Mr.Devang Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.5. Mr.Joshi has contended that the applicant is on bail today and fine amount has also been deposited by ...
Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Ahir. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State.2. This application is filed by the applicant under section 439 of Cr.P.C. For releasing him on regular bail in connection with the offence registered vi de CR No. I-414/2009 at Umara Police Station,, Surat, for the offence punishable under sec. 143, 147, 149, 302, 326, 188, 504, 120-B, 212, 34 and 114 of IPC.3. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that previously the bail application filed by the applicant has been rejected by this Court, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has released co-accused on bail and that decision i s binding to this Court.Mr Dave has produced the copy of the order dated 17.1.20 11 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr Dave has, therefore, prayed to release the applicant on regular bail.4. As against this, learned APP Mr HL Jani has strongly opposed this application and read the order passed by the trial Court.5. I have gone through the order passed by th...
Kanubhai Vallabhbhai Mistri. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with complaint being Criminal Misc. Case No. 57 of 2010 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Navsari for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, 471, 474, 420, 114 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 considering the nature of allegations and role attributed to the applicant and other attending circumstances, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.3. Heard Learned APP for the respondent State.4. 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 punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussi...
Shree Chandrakant B Patel. Vs. Department of Post and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. One Shri Chandrakant B. Patel, claiming to be a senior citizen, as is mentioned in the Notice issued through advocate Shri Prashant K. Kapadia, is before this Court praying that order dated 31^st August 2010, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadodara West division, Vadodara be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner, through his wife, invested amount on various dates in Kisan Vikas Patra (hereinafter referred to 'KVP'), details of these investments are set out in a tabular form, produced at Annexure 'B', page 11 to this petition. The amount invested totals to Rs.2,80,000/-, which will be Rs.5,60,000/- on maturity. What is important is that, the wife of the petitioner was the 'SAS' 'agent' for collecting the deposits under various schemes of Post Office. Through her, the petitioner - husband deposited aforesaid amount in KVP with the Post Office authorities.2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this C...
Mafatbhai Ramabhai Bhalia and anr. 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 169/2010 with Vaghodia Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that charge sheet is filed. He further submits that the applicants have 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 considering the nature of allegations and role attributed to the applicant and other attending circumstances, the applicants 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, nature of allegations, role attributed to the...
Kashmiraben Manojbhai PadaliyA. Vs. Kiranbhai Jamanbhai Vadaliya and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. All these petitions arise out of the common orders and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In S.C.A. No.551/2011, challenge has been made to the order passed below application Exhibit-83 dated 30.11.2010 as also the order passed below application Exhibit-5 dated 09.12.2010 filed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.565/2008 by the learned 4^th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajkot, whereby, application Exhibit-83 came to be rejected and application Exhibit-5 was allowed.3. In S.C.A. No.16741/2010, challenge has been made to the order passed below application Exhibit-83 dated 30.11.2010 by the learned 4^th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajkot, whereas, in S.C.A. No.16745/2010, challenge has been made to the communication dated 19.04.2010 of the Principal District Judge, Rajkot, whereby, the concerned learned 4^th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajkot has been informed that it is not required to consider the application for revocation of the succession certificate and therefore, the matter be pro...
Managing Director - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and anr. Vs. N ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The present application is filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the main matter. The prayer sought for in this application is as under:-"7. A. This Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, be allowed and the disputes raised in the petition be referred to Arbitration in accordance with Arbitration clause in Dealership Agreement executed by this Applicant with the Petitioner."2. Learned Advocate Mr.Pratik Barot for the original petitioner states that the petitioner has no objection if the matter is referred to arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause in the dealership agreement between the parties.3. That being so, this application deserves to be allowed.4. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Pratik Barot waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-original petitioner.5. For the contents of the application and the submission made by learned Advocate Ms.Minoo A.Shah for the applicants, the application is allowed. The dispute ventilated in the petit...
Mahesh R Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, with the following prayers :"A) admit this petition;B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate decision for granting benefit of first and second higher pay scale to the petitioner and the respondents may be directed to pass appropriate order for granting benefit of higher pay scale and difference of salary may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner with 12% interest and other consequential benefits may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner;ALTERNATIVELY issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent no.2 authority to take appropriate decision upon the proposals received by the respondent no.2 as per the communication dated 7/11/2008 and 16/10/2009 and the respondent no.2 be directed to take appropriate decision in respect of the mater relating to grant of higher pay scale and after hearing the petitioner, responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »