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.
Prakashgiri Kantigiri Goswami. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Petitioner is one of the accused in a criminal case, bearing C.R. No. I-186/2009, registered with Malaviya Nagar Police Station, in which the offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Previously, the present petitioner had moved an application, bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11461 of 2009, which was withdrawn unconditionally on 28.10.2009.3. A fresh bail application, bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.315 of 2010, thereafter, came to be filed. This application was also dismissed. This time, it was disposed of by a reasoned order dated 22.01.2010, on merits, in the following terms:The applicant is the original accused no.2. He seeks bail pursuant to complaint at Annexure-A. Offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 188 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Previously, the present applicant had filed bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.11461/2009, which...
Premjibhai Devjibhai MewadA. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged order of experiment dated 30.01.05 passed against him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division, Surat City, order passed by the appellate authority dated 07.03.06, order dated 04.08.05 detaining the petitioner in custody for the rest of the period n the ground that he has violated the experiment order and order dated 04.08.05 by which the petitioner was committed to Vadodara Special Jail.2. By order of experiment dated 30.01.05 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division, Surat City, the petitioner was external for a period of two years from Surat City. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, by order dated 07.03.06 partly allowed the appeal and reduced the period of experiment by six months. Therefore, as per the appellate order, the petitioner was required to be externed upto 31^st July 2006. However, not being satisfied by the appellate order, the p...
Kokilaben Hemubhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
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 10.3.2006 rendered in Sessions Case No.17 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, 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 through jail authority praying for suspension of sentence and to enlarge her on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered criminal appeal.4. Having heard Mr. LB Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and upon perusal of the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet, since the earlier application filed by the application has been rejected by order dated 23.3.2009 passed by coor...
Rajesh Naginbhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
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 12.6.2007 rendered in Sessions Case No.7 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years, has filed this application through jail authority, praying for suspension of sentence and to release him on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal.5. We have heard 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 the impugned judgment and order, against which...
Ashokkumar Bhojraj. 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. The applicant convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 24.5.2007 rendered in Sessions Case No.130 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years, has filed this application through jail authority, praying for suspension of sentence and to release him on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal. Alternatively, it is also prayed to pass appropriate order for expeditious hearing of the Criminal Appeal.5. We have heard Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet forwarded by th...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Vs. Ratansinh Shankarsinh Pa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant-original opponent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation to condone the delay of 164 days in preferring the appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar dated 22/06/2009 in M.A.C.P. No. 269/1998 awarding Rs. 34,384/- so far as to be paid by the appellant is concerned.2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has stated at the bar that the applicant is not in a position to serve opponents nos. 3 and 4 as their whereabouts are not known, and, therefore, it is submitted that even if opponents nos. 3 and 4 are served through substituting service by giving advertisement in local newspaper then also the expenditure would be much more than the amount awarded by the learned tribunal, and, therefore, it is requested to dispose of/dismiss the present application. 3. Accordingly, as the applica...
Kec International. Vs. M.V. jetta and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The present is an application seeking restoration of Admiralty Suit No.1 of 2002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution and absence of the counsel on 23/2/2006. In support of the application, it is contended that the counsel was busy in some other court, therefore, he could not attend the present matter when it was called out for hearing.2. It would be noteworthy that in relation to an incident dtd.17/2/2006 when mobile phone of Mr.S.B. Vakil started ringing in the Court, this Court issued a notice of contempt to Mr.S.B. Vakil after recording that his mobile phone was ringing and he had expressed no regret or remorse. It appears that thereafter, the matter was discussed in the Bar Association and a resolution to boycott the proceedings of this Court on 22^nd and 23^rd February, 2006 was passed. The said resolution under the signature of the President of the Bar Association was widely communicated to all the news papers and the said press note contained many things which were be...
Vijay M Mistry Construction Pvt Ltd. Vs. National Buildings Constructi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court praying that the impugned notice at Annexure.B dated 05.07.2006 be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be released from the liability of providing Bank guarantee in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the Daman-Ganga river project which was completed on 15.06.2004.2. By notice dated 05.07.2006, respondent No.1 approached the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda for extending the bank guarantee up to 22.07.2007 including maintenance period. The request was:You are therefore requested to ensure that necessary extension of BG may be issued and send to this office urgently.3. In case extension of above guarantee is not possible, this letter may please be treated as encashment notice. The proceeds of above guarantees i.e. Rs.38,76,461=00 may please be remitted through demand draft in favour of NBCC Ltd. payable at Vadodara.??4. Perusal of Annexure-B reveals that this letter, dated 05.07.2006 was received by the Bank of Baroda on 08....
Laxman Prabhubhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
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. By filing instant application, the applicant convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 rendered in Sessions Case No.16 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajpipla, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 etc. 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.L.B.Dabhi, 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 enjoyed Furlough Leave in March, 2010 and the earlier ...
Dilip J Shah. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Both the appeals arise against the common order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in concerned Special Civil Application, whereby the petitions qua concerned petitioners have been dismissed.2. We have heard Mr. GM Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Kalpana Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for ONGC, who appears upon advance copy.3. The contention raised in the present appeals by the learned counsel for the appellants is two fold, one is that the petitioners were in service of the contractor all throughout and after 2009 also when the contractor was relieved, the original petitioners have been continued in service. It is submitted that now they have reached to the age of 55 years and after 3 years they may also reach to the age of superannuation. Under these circumstances, the Ld. Single Judge ought to have taken sympathetic view. It is also submitted that in respect of one employee, who was belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC], the relaxation was granted t...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »