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.
The State of Gujarat. Vs. Ravisinh Bhupatsinh.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is the correctness of the judgement and order dated 3.1.2007 rendered in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 20 of 1994 by learned Special Judge, Amreli, by which the sole respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. Mr. Bhavin S. Raiyani, learned advocate for the sole respondent accused, has filed a note dated 8.1.2011 before the Registrar of this Court praying to list the above numbered Criminal Appeal on board in view of the fact that the sole respondent-accused has expired on 4.7.2010. He has also annexed Death Certificate of the sole respondent-accused.3. Pursuant thereto, the Registry has placed the above numbered Criminal Appeal before us for passing appropriate orders.4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, has placed on record the communication dated 13.1.2011 sent by th...
Harishbhai Budhiyabhai Kunkana and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat .
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Petitioners are original accused Nos, 4,6 and 7. They seek bail after charge-sheet.2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no direct evidence linking the petitioners with the alleged offence. He drew my attention to the statements of the various witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency during the investigation. He submitted that the petitioners were not seen last along with the deceased. As per the complaint and other statements it was main accused Khalabbhai and Rakesh who had picked up the deceased in a car from his house at which time also, there was no mention of the presence of the petitioners. He further submitted that extra judicial confession stated to have been made by Khalabbhai and/or Rakesh to the Sarpanch, would not be sufficient to implicate the petitioners. He submitted that there is no recovery or discovery at the instance of the petitioners.3. Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter, I find this is a fit case for granting bail si...
Bhikhabhai Manibhai RanA. Vs.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.5.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Padra in Criminal Case No.133 of 2005, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:2.1 The appellant had purchased the plot from one of his friend, wherein sale deed was yet to be executed in respect of the said plot. Meanwhile, the accused showed his desire to purchase the said plot as he was in hurry to construct residence. The accused had decided to purchase the said plot in consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the appellant and against the said deal, the accused had given two cheques of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/-. But the said cheques were deposited by the appellant in the State Bank of India but the said cheques dishonored with the endorsement of insufficient balance in the account. Ther...
Chetan Rameshbhai Shah. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. The appellant original complainant has filed this Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment and order 2.3.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.2147 of 2009.2. It is the case of appellant complainant that the present respondent No.2 original accused has given the cheque No. 452150 dated 24.3.2009 for Rs.50,000/-, drawn on Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Scheduled Bank), Maninagar Branch, Ahmedabad, in presence of the bailiff, for the purpose of settlement of Civil Suit No. 45 of 2009, filed by the complainant before the City Civil Court. It is alleged by the complainant that the said cheque was deposited in United Co-Operative Bank Ltd. which was returned on 30.3.2009 with an endorsement "today's opening balance insufficient". Therefore, the complainant issued notice to the respondent accused throug UPC and also by registered A.D., however, the same was not replied by the resp...
Jayanti Kalu Barjod. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a successive bail application.2. The applicant-accused is charged with having committed offences under sections 406, 409, 381, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 114 of IPC for which FIR, being C.R. No. I-44/2010 has been registered with Fatehpura Police Station, Dist. Dahod.3. Learned advocate Mr. Japan Dave referred to the papers and submitted that the investigation is over and now the charge sheet is filed and the case is based on documentary evidence. It was submitted that the applicant is a member of the panchayat and he has been attributed with the role with regard to collection of some information regarding the scheme known as 'NREGA Scheme'. He submitted that the other co-accused has been released as per the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14697 of 2010.4. Learned APP Mr. Kartik Pandya resisted the application and submitted th...
Mahesh S KhirA. Vs. B B Swen or Successor District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. The petitioner herein was, at the relevant time, engaged as Assistant Public Prosecutor.2. Mr.Shastri, learned advocate has submitted that in the month of June-1994, he was ordered to be transferred from Rajkot to Bharuch. He further submitted that around this time, some incidents occurred in view of which, the petitioner was placed under suspension. In backdrop of the said development, the petition came to be filed in 2001 seeking below mentioned relief(s):-"20(a) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the inaction of the respondent and be further pleased to direct the respondent authority to treat the petitioner's entire tenure including the period of suspension as a qualifying service for pensionary benefits and be further pleased to direct the respondents authorities to give all consequential benefits including increments, adequate subsequent allowance as per the rules, benefit of earned leave and all ...
Sushilaben Prahladbhai Patel. Vs.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order of the Tribunal dated 20.07.2010 passed in OA No.216/09, whereby the application has been dismissed by the Tribunal.2. Heard Mr.Jadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.3. The contention on the part of the petitioner is that immediately after 3 days from tendering resignation for voluntary retirement, the said resignation was withdrawn and therefore, the application for voluntary retirement ought not to have been accepted and if it is wrongly accepted, the action would be bad but the Tribunal has dismissed the application and therefore the present petition before this Court.4. The contention appears to be be attractive. However, upon close scrutiny, it appears that the Tribunal has recorded the relevant reasons which inter alia read at para 9 as under:"...In the present case in hand, the applicant signed the pension papers and also took all pensionary benefits and thereafter approached the Tribunal in June 2009, i.e. ne...
Gopal Bhai Dhula Bhai MakwanA. Vs.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Mengdey, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.2. The application preferred this bail application u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Naranpura police station C.R.No.I 367 of 1990 regarding the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 436 of the IPC.3. Mr.C.B.Raval, learned advocate representing the applicant submits that in the instant case, the applicant was arrested and was produced before the Court of concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and he was released on bail on 29.5.1990. Mr.Raval, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that subsequently pursuant to non-bailable warrant issued by the concerned Court, the applicant came to be arrested on 20.7.2010 and his bail application came to be rejected initially by the concerned Magistrate Court and, thereafter, by City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the applicant did not abscond, but since he ...
Haren Jayantkumar Doshi. Vs. United Fire and General Insu.Co.Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Present revision application has been filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff for the prayers that the judgment and order passed by the learned Small Cause Court, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 1985 dated 19^th February, 1990 as well as judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 1990 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot dated 28^th February, 1997 confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trail Court, may be quashed and set aside on the grounds set out in the memo of this revision application inter alia contending that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the suit premises was let out for the office purpose. However, thereafter insurance company shifted its office and the suit premises remained closed and they did not use suit premises for office purpose. It is also contended that the premises was let out for the purpose of office use by the respondent insurance company and admittedly when it has not been used for...
State of Gujarat, Through Commissioner of Commercial Tax. Vs. M/S Rama ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant the State of Gujarat seeks condonation of delay of 110 days caused in filing Tax Appeal (Stamp) No.789 of 2010.2. Vide order dated 16^th August, 2010, this Court had issued rule. In response to the notice of rule, the respondent has filed appearance through learned advocate Mr. Manish K. Kaji and has filed an affidavit in-reply, dealing with the averments made in the application on merits. The respondent has also raised a contention that in the light of the provisions of section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (the Act), the High Court has no power to condone the delay caused in filing a tax appeal and as such, the application deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.3. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the application, to submit that the delay that has been occasioned in filing the tax appeal has been suff...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »