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.
Arvindbhai Maniyabhai Khant and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. The present application has been filed by the applicants-accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail after filing of the charge sheet.2. The applicants accused are charged with having committed offences under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, for which, FIR being I-C.R.No.39/2010 has been lodged at Ditvas Police Station.3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel, Mr.Tejas Barot for the applicants submitted that he does not press this application qua applicant no.1 viz., Arvindbhai Maniyabhai Khant and, hence, this application stands disposed of as not pressed qua applicant no.1 viz., Arvindbhai Maniyabhai Khant.4. However, learned counsel, Mr.Barot submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and considering the fact that the applicant no.2 is a female and as now the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, the present application may be allowed.5. Learned A.P.P., Mr.Pandya resisted the present application an...
Mariyanben Salemmade Haji Kasam Vagher and anr. Vs. the State of Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. By way of present appeal filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15^th November 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Khambhaliya, in Sessions Case No.63 of 2006, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is residing with his family. They are five brothers and three sisters. It is the case of the complainant that marriage of her sister-Husena was performed about six months ago with Anwar Salemamad and after one month from their marriage, Anwar Salemamad had gone on a board of Ship. It is also the case of the complainant that her sister was residing with her in-laws for the last five months. It ...
N K Proteins Limited and anr. Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. The learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered a draft amendment. The amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.2. Rule. Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.3. Considering the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, the petition was taken up for final hearing and is finally disposed of by this judgment.4. By this petition, the petitioner, a Public Limited Company, seeks the following substantive relief:"[10] Under the circumstances, petitioners most respectfully pray that:[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, quashing Detention Memo No.1/2010-11 dated 19.9.2010 (Annexure-G) and Seizure Memo dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure-H);[A-1] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or...
Vinaykumar Maganbhai Asari. Vs. Anand Agriculture University and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"(A) Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application;(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to operate the select list prepared by the respondents in pursuance to the advertisement No.1/09 dated 01.03.2009 and thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned advertisement dated 06.12.2010 published by the respondents which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition by way of ad interim relief the respondents be restrained from implementing the fresh process of recruitment on the basis of advertisement dated 06.12.2010 for the post of Junior Clerk and thereby be pleased to direct the respondents to operate the select list as per advertisement dtd. 01.03.09;"...
Hafiz Qari Mohammad Saukatullah S/O Ahmedullah Ghori. Vs. State of Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorist Act (`POTA' for short) is to the correctness of the Order dated 29.10.2010, rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2907 of 2010, by the Special Judge (POTA), Ahmedabad, by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 49 of the POTA read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail, during the pendency of trial in connection with the FIR registered at CR No. I-314 of 2002 with Sector 21 Police Station, Gandhinagar, has been rejected.2 As per the prosecution case, on 24.9.2002, the Swaminarayan Akshardham Temple, situated at Gandhinagar, was attacked by two persons and during indiscriminate firing, 33 persons have lost their lives and several persons were injured. Therefore, a complaint came to be lodged by G.L. Singhal, DSP, Gandhinagar under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 153 (1), 451 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 25(1) (AA) of the Arm...
Deep Industries Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd and anr..
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. The learned counsel for the respondent ONGC had orally submitted, if the natural gas is not compressed, it may result into huge loss of lacs of rupees every day and therefore, he prays for the final hearing of the main Special Civil Application. The learned counsels appearing for both the side agree for the same. Hence, we have heard the main Special Civil Application itself for final hearing.2. The short facts of the case appears to be that on 25.01.2010, a tender was floated for inviting bids for hiring of gas compression services at GGS-IV Gandhar (hereinafter referred to as "GGS-IV") and GGS-North Gandhar (hereinafter referred to as "GGS-Gandhar") for a period of three years. The pre-bid conference was fixed on 03.03.2010 and closing of the tender was fixed on 31.03.2010. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.2 together with the other tenderer submitted the tender documents. The bid was comprising into two parts. One was technical bid and another was price bid. It appears ...
Ranjitbhai Bhupatbhai Khavad. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. The present appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 2^nd Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.20 of 2006, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month. The learned Sessions Judge was further pleased to convict and sentence the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, further R.I. for two months.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:2. The allegations levelled against the accused are that the accused present appellant along with other accused have misguided the daughter ...
Gujarat State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development and ors. V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.D.Nanavaty for Mr.B.M.Mangukiya for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, Mr.P.K.Jani, for the respondents.2. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Nanavaty that the present petitioner No.1 is a Central Co-operative Bank registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and other petitioners are newly elected members of Board of Directors of the petitioner No.1. Since the petitioner No.1 is a Central Co-operative Bank, Sec.80(3) of the Act is applicable in this case and, therefore, State Government has no power to appoint any nominee. It is further submitted that even assuming that State Government is a guarantor for the purpose of loan advanced by the present petitioner No.1 to other banks, then also, it can appoint only one nominee under sub-section (3) of Sec.80 of the Act, if only share capital is subscribed by it. It is further submitted that with mala fide intention, ulterior motive, arbitrar...
Dushyantsinh Pravinsinh Raolji. Vs. Abdulkarim HajimahammadhusaIn Lakd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Both these petitions arise out of a common judgment and order and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.By way of these petitions, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the common judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Misc. Civil Appeals No.34/2009 to 36/2009 dated 03.09.2009, whereby, the said appeals were dismissed and the order passed by the trial Court in application below Exhibits 5, 15 & 16 in R.C.S. No.7/2009 dated 18.08.2009 came to be confirmed.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, original plaintiff, had filed R.C.S. No.7/2009 against the respondents, original defendants, before the Court of learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Rajpipla. Along with the said suit, the petitioner had also filed application Exhibit-5 for ad-interim injunction against the respondents. The respondents appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement vide Exhibit-15. The respondents had also claimed counter claim i...
Ammar Amu SaifuddIn Vohra Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
ORAL ORDER1. The applicant of this application seeks regular bail in connection with criminal complaint bearing C.R.No.I-224 of 2009 registered before Limbayat Police Station, Surat City.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. The applicant is in jail since 06.08.2009. He further pointed out that even as per the complaint there are no allegations against the applicant for having been involved in printing of fake currency notes. He submitted that other co-accused have been released on bail by this Court by different orders.3. Considering the above prima facie aspects, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-224 of 2009 registered before Limbayat Police Station, Surat City on his furnishing bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court and subject to the following ...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »