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.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Vs. Vashudev Kantilal Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 02.04.2009, rendered in Criminal Case No. 23 of 2004 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedbad. The said case was registered against the present respondent No.1 original accused for the offence under section 16(1)A(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the Food Inspector on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Food Inspector, along with his Peon, visited the shop of respondent No.1 - accused on 22.03.2004 at 12.00 noon and, in presence of panch, took sample of "Chilly Powder" for the purpose of analysis. The panchnama ...
Manish Kumar. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that ...
Special Land Acquisition Officer. Vs. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The present First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been preferred by the appellant-original opponent-Special Land Acquisition Officer challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Surat (the Reference Court) in Land Reference Case No. 60/1983 awarding compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq meter.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there was common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 53/1983 to 66/1983, 68/1983, 70/1983, 72/1983 to 74/1983 and against the common judgment and award the very appellant-original opponent preferred First Appeal No. 1296/1988 and allied matters (inclusive of present First Appeal No. 1303/1988).3. It is reported that by the common judgment and award dated 11/04/2008 the learned Single Judge has already dismissed First Appeal No. 1296/1988 and allied matters (except First Appeal No. 1303/1988) and has confir...
Rashmikant Jethabhai Dabhi. Vs. District Registrar - Cooperative Socie ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges order dated 13-7-2010 passed in Revision Application No.31 of 2010 by the competent/appellate authority, Deputy Secretary (Appeal), Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, whereby the competent authority quashed and set aside the order dated 15-1-2010 passed in Appeal No.106 of 2000 by the Additional Registrar(Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, and remanded the matter to the District Registrar for deciding the matter afresh.2. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.D.P. Joshi for the petitioner that as per the order passed by the competent authority, it was held that before passing resolution under Sec.36 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner and as far this issue is concerned, it was not mentioned in the agenda which was a necessity under the provisions of law and, therefore, the impugned order b...
Vimal Cooperative Housing Society. Vs. Revender Father of St Joseph Ch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as there is broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, under instructions from their respective clients that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding the suit afresh in accordance with law on its own merits and the learned Judge may be directed to pronounce the judgment on all the issues, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Judge, Dahod dated 22-26/04/2010 in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2004 by which the learned Judge has decided issue nos. 1/A and 1/B only and with...
Vasudev Mulajibhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. RULE.2. Mr. L.B.Dabhi, 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. The applicant convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2008 rendered in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 45 days to enable him to find out a suitable match for his daughter who has reached to a marriageable age.5. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet forwarded by the jail authority along with the application.6. Upon perusal of...
State of Gujarat. Vs. Nainaben Madansinh Shapa and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The applicants have filed this application for clarification in the order dated 21.1.1010 in Civil Application No. 12718 of 2009 by making following prayers.[a] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this application;[b] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to clarify that the payment of salary / wages to the original petitioners, as directed by the Hon'ble Court are to be paid by the respondent trust i.e. Gujarat Kelavani Trust and the State Government is not liable to make payment of wages / salary to the original petitioners.[c] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to clarify the order dated 21.01.2010 [Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Bhagwati Prasad and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Bankim N. Mehta] that the payment of salary / wages to the original petitioners, as directed by the Hon'ble Court are to be paid by the respondent trust i.e. Gujarat Kelavani Trust and the State Government is not liable to make payment of wages / salary...
Gajubha @ Gajendrasingh Dolubha Dodia and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Rule. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned APP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.2. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants submit that after initial investigation, the investigating officer has come to a definite conclusion that no offence punishable under SectionS 395, 397, 323, 506(2) and under Section 25(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 27 of Arms Act is made out and accordingly report is submitted to the concerned J.M.F.C.3. Meanwhile, parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the complainant has filed an affidavit on 31^st January, 2011 stating that the complaint was filed in haste and there is no ill-will grievance amongst each other and the dispute is resolved and if the complaint is quashed, he has no objection.4. I have heard learned advocate for the complainant and learned APP.5. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicants and now the report is filed by the investigating...
Bhavarlal Jagmalji Bisnoi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Ashish Desai, Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.2. The applicants original accused Nos.1 & 2 have preferred the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release them on bail in connection with Prohi. C.R. No. 191/2010 registered with Pethapur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 66(B), 65(a)(e), 116(b) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act,1949.3. Mr.P.Y.Divyeshwar, learned advocate for Mr.Mulia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that other co-accused are already released on bail. He has further submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court while releasing them on bail. He has further submitted that the applicants shall reside at 303/B, Vaishnav Devi Complex, Nr.Chandkheda Bus Stand, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad and they shall not leave the local limits of Ahmedabad as well as Chandkh...
State of Gujarat. Vs. Rameshbhai Pachanbhai Patel.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 14^th June 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Nadiad, in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2006 for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent no.1-accused of the charges levelled against him.2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that on 16^th April 2002 the complainant-Food Inspector has visited the shop of the original accused with Panch, where the original accused was present. It is the case of the original complainant that he purchased 36 pouch of Natural Mineral Water (Amrut) after paying consideration. It is also the case of the prosecution that after following due procedure of sealing, the sample was sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Vadodara for analysis. On examination, the Public A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »