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 State Judicial Department (Class III) Employee'S Federation an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The challenge in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to communication dated 28.01.2010, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Legal Department, addressed to the District Judges of all District Courts in the State of Gujarat, and to communication dated 04.12.2010, addressed by the Under Secretary, Legal Department, to the petitioners, whereby the decision to pay honorarium at the rate of 25% of their pre-revised basic-pay, has been confirmed.2. In order to elucidate the issues arising for consideration in the petition, a brief recapitulation of the factual matrix in which these issues have arisen, would be necessary. Petitioner No.1 is the Gujarat State Judicial Department (Class-III) Employees' Federation and petitioner No.2 is the Gujarat State Judicial Department Stenographer/ P.S. Association, who have filed the present petition through their respective Presidents.3. A Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices was held at New Delhi, on 1...
Jesangji Bhikhaji Thakore and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The present Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 16^th February, 2006 below exh. 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 380 of 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palanpur, whereby certain sections have been added looking to the gravity of the offence.2. Initially, FIR was registered for the offence punishable under sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the offences punishable under section 326 and 333 were added and arrest has been directed.3. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicants who has submitted that in pursuance of the judgment in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others reported in AIR 1980, Supreme Court, 785, the applicants may be allowed to surrender before the court because they are already enlarged on bail prior to the addition of these two sections of Indian Penal Code.4. This aspect of the matter has not b...
Asantlal Nagjibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Pravinbhai Babaldas Modi and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. This appeal directed against the judgement and order dated 24.02.1984 passed by the Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below application Exh. 7 in Civil Suit No. 1736 of 1983 whereby the application was allowed and the suit was stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. The short facts of the case are that original plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were partners of the firm namely Shyam Krushna Corporation. The partnership deed was executed on 15^th of December 1978 and there is an arbitration clause and according to that when there is any dispute between the partners, it has to be settled through arbitration. The original defendant no. 2 has retired from the partnership from 31.05.1980 by a deed dated 18.07.1980 and therefore the original plaintiff has filed this application.3. Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that Trial Court has failed to appreciate that this was a suit against one of the partners who has already retired and looking to the allegation m...
Kishorsinh Motilal Rathod. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Rule. Mr. RC Kodekar, 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 22.9.2010 rendered in Sessions Case No.57 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Gandhinagar camp at Kalol, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment of life, has filed this application praying for suspension of sentence and to enlarge him on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered criminal appeal.4. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Shrikar H. Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. RC Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order as well as oral and documentary ev...
Kantibhai Valjibhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. RULE.2. Mr. R.C.Kodekar, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. By filing instant application, the applicant convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 30.9.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No.76 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, has prayed to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 45 days to enable him to construct his house.5. Having considered the submissions advanced by Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and a perusal of the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet forwarded by the jail authority alongwith the application, since the applicant convict has undergone total period of 2 years, 7 months and 28 days ...
Tilakpuri Mahadevpuri Gauswamy. Vs. Police Commissioner and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Admit. Mr. NJ Shah, Ld. AGP waives service of notice of admission for the respondents.2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. The present appeal arises against the order dated 12/10/2010 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12499 of 2010, whereby the petition is dismissed.4. The only question to be considered in the present matter is whether the officer who acted as an appellate authority could hear the appeal against his own order in capacity as the disciplinary authority.5. The relevant facts are that the petitioner appellant was working as Sub Inspector and there were departmental proceedings against him in connection with the alleged misconduct. On 16/12/2005 show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted reply and thereafter, on 1/3/2006 ultimately in the departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority Shri K.R. Kaushik, Police Commissioner, im...
Amubhai Pragjibhai Parmar. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. RULE2. Mr. L.B. learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. By filing instant application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act" for short), the applicant has prayed to condone delay of 33 days caused in filing the above numbered Criminal Appeal.5. Having considered the submissions advanced by Mr. M.R. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and a perusal of the averments made in the application which have remained uncontroverted, and also considering the celebrated principles governing the discretionary exercise of power conferred under Section-5 of the Act so also the reported decisions of the Supreme Court construing Section-5 of the Act liberally, we are satisfied that the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay caused in filing the...
Welspun India Limited. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The applicants in these applications have moved judge's summons with following prayers:"(a) To grant the modifications as per Schedule hereto in the scheme of arrangement sanctioned vide judgment dated 8^th May 2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Mr Justice K.A. Puj) in Company Petitions No.30, 31 and 32 of 2009 so as to enable the applicant to ensure proper working of the scheme of arrangement, duly sanctioned by the Hon'ble Court."2. The learned Company Judge, by an order dated 8.5.2009 passed in Company Petitions No. 30, 31 and 32 of 2009 granted prayers made in paragraph 25 (a) and para 22 of the Company Petition No.30 of 2008 for the de-merged company and prayers made in para 16 (a) of the Company Petitions No. 31 and 32 of 2009 for the resulting companies. However, as per the affidavit filed by the Regional Director, North Western Region, Ahmedabad, certain modification and clarifications were sought in the scheme by the application for modification of clause 4.3 and in...
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. These are the petitions filed by two petitioner companies for sanction of a scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of Shreno Limited, the transferor company with Alembic Glass Industries Limited, the transferee company under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Both the petitioner companies belong to the same group of management. The transferor company is a closely held limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of machines suitable for glass bottle making machines and related products. Whereas the transferee company is a listed public limited company, engaged in manufacturing and marketing of all sorts of glass, glassware and other related products. Thus, both the companies are engaged in similar line of commercial activities which are complimentary to each other. Considering the huge contingent liability towards the ONGC, the transferee company had moved the BIFR for declaration of the petitioner company as a sick company. The ...
Narmada Chematur Petrochemicalltd. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Upon the application of the above named company by summons dated 18-7-2006, upon hearing Smt. Swati Soparkar, advocate for the applicant company and upon reading of the affidavit dated 17-7-2006 filed in support of the Judges Summons for directions and other relevant annexure attached in support of the contents of the affidavit filed by the deponent, (Exhibit 'C' being a copy of the proposed scheme of arrangement), and considering, in particular, the statements made in paragraph No.5 in the affidavit in support filed with the said applications, it is ordered :2. That the outcome of the meeting of the unsecured creditors conducted on 29^th June 2006, is hereby permitted to be abandoned.3. That a fresh meeting of the unsecured creditors of the company be convened and held at the Auditorium at Corporate Office of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Limited (GNFC) at P.O. Narmadanagar, 392 015, Dist. Bharuch on Saturday, the 19^th day of August 2006 at 11:00 a.m., for the purpose...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »