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.
Ramdevji Chelaji Thakor. Vs, State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I-20 of 2010 with Mandal Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that now charge sheet is filed and allegations levelled in the FIR are not based on any relevant or cogent material and the deceased committed suicide out of suspicion about the accused having illicit relationship with one Meenakshiben daughter of Dr. Jayantibhai Patel. The statement of Meenakshiben do not form a part of the charge sheet. Considering the nature of evidence, role attributed to the applicant and punishment prescribed, this application for bail may kindly be considered.3. Heard learned APP for the respondent State.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the overall facts of the case and now charge sheet is filed and investigation is ov...
Karnal Singh. Vs. Samima Kausar Wd/O Mohmmed Shamim Raza and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Leave to correct the application as SIT, through Mr. Karnal Singh and the office shall also correct the title as the present application in Criminal Misc. Application No.9832/10 with Special Criminal Application No.1850/09 with Special Criminal Application No.822/04.2. We have heard Mr.Karnal Singh, Chairman of SIT, Mr.Satish Verma, member of SIT, Mr. Mukul Sinha for Mr.Gopinath Pillai, Mr.P.S. Champaneri, Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, Mr.K.B.Trivedi, Advocate General for State.3. It prima facie appears that because of certain difference of opinion amongst the members of SIT, the prayer is made to appoint any lawyer as amicus curiae for giving opinion on the legal issues involved in it while in the course of investigation or may be thereafter.4. It also appears from the counter affidavit filed by Mr.Satish Verma, one of the member of SIT that there are differences of opinion amongst the members of SIT, may be on account of no hierarchy formed in the order passed by...
District Development Officer and anr. Vs. Pankajbhai Nanjibhai DodiyA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.2. Rule. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for Mr. Supehia, learned advocate for the respondent waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, Rule is fixed forthwith.3. The employer Opponent in Reference (LCB) No. 109 of 1999 in the Labour Court of Bhavnagar has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award and order dated 29.7.2010, where under, the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the workman with 20% of back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits without awarding any costs.4. Facts in brief leading to filing this petition deserve to be set out as under.The workman as per his say, was served as Peon since last 4 years prior to his termination and drawing Rs.900/- wages per month on 18.11.1998. His services were orally terminated without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (he...
Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Nathubhai Joriyabhai Vas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Both these Civil Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been preferred by the applicants-original opponents- Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karjan Project, Unit No.3, Bharuch and another to condone the delay of 776 days in preferring the First Appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch (Reference Court) dated 31.3.2008 passed in Land Reference Case Nos.847 and 848 of 1992, by which learned Reference Court has allowed the said Land Reference Cases awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per Are.2. Considering the huge delay of 776 days in preferring the First Appeals, this Court heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants on merits of the case also and having heard Shri Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the applicants and considering the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, this Court is satisfied t...
Premjibhai Shamjibhai. Vs. Aatekaben Mahmadali.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Present Revision Application has been filed by the plaintiff original defendant under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 1985 by the learned Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot which has been confirmed vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2000 by learned Addl. District Judge & Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No. 4, Rajkot, on the grounds set out in the memo of appeal before it.3. The facts of the case briefly summarized are that the respondents were original plaintiffs and owners of the suit property which has been let out to the petitioner original defendant. The Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 1985 came to be filed by the plaintiffs original owners for recovery of possession and eviction before the Small Cause Court, Rajkot. On the basis of appreciation of material and evidence, the sui...
Motilal Daulatram Mohnani Karta of Motilal D Mohnani,huf and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Present application has been preferred by the applicants herein original applicants to appoint any other Arbitrator in place of Mr.M.D. Dave, Retired Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, as by communication dtd.26/8/2010, he has withdrawn himself from the proceedings and hence in his place another sole arbitrator is required to be appointed.2. Mr.Sukhwani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made a statement at the bar that on reconsideration, sole Arbitrator Mr.M.D. Dave, Retired Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, is ready and willing to continue and work as sole Arbitrator and proceeding with the arbitration proceedings and therefore, there is no necessity to appoint another sole arbitrator in place of Mr.M.D. Dave.3. In response to the notice issued by this Court respondent No.1 Shri Rasikbhai Popatlal Darji is personally present in the Court and has appeared as Party-in-person. He has submitted that, in fact, the dispute is not required to be referred to ...
Chauhan Hareshkumar @ Pintoo Nenaram and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Rule.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at Prohibition C.R. No. 783 of 2010 with Mehsana Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 66(B), 65 (a) (e), 116 (b) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that considering the nature of evidence, role attributed to the applicants and punishment prescribed, this application for bail may kindly be considered.4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, I am inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail.5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with first information report regi...
Dipakbhai Arvindbhai Panchal. Vs. State of Guajrat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State.2. This is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant who came to be arrested in connection with First Information Report registered as CR No.I-22 of 2010 registered with Vaghodiya Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC.3. Heard the Shri J.B.Pardiwala, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Parthiv Shah for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State.4. Shri J.B.Pardiwala, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Parthiv Shah for the applicants submits that, at the end of investigation, charge-sheet is filed. Besides co-accused are already enlarged on bail by this Court as well as the trial Court. Even as per the version of the complainant, land was restored in the revenue record in the name of original owner and further aspect about charges in the charge-sheet can be considered at the stag...
Kantibhai G. Rohit S/O. Govindbhai Rohit Working as TtA. Vs. Bharat Sa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The petitioner by way of this petition challenges the order passed by the Tribunal dated 27.10.2010 in T.A. No.96 of 2009 whereby the petition has been dismissed.2. Heard Mr.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the list of 466 candidates has been operated even after exhausting the post advertised and, therefore, it has been submitted that the subsequent appointment of other candidates in excess of the post advertised, could be said as illegal appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a matter like this, the promotion already given were required to be reviewed, and if such exercise was undertaken, the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of reservation and, hence, the Tribunal has not properly considered the matter. He fairly admitted that, those who were to be affected if the promotion was reviewed, as prayed by the petitioner, were not joined as party in the proceedings of the applicatio...
Patel Richikumar Champakbhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Petitioner is the original complainant. He allegedly received injury at the hands of the accused with sharp edged weapon such as Astra. He filed complaint in this regard before Umra Town Police Station, Surat on 12.3.2009. The complaint was, however, registered under Sections 324, and 504(2) of Indian Penal Code. Consequently charge-sheet was filed by the police also for the said offences.2. Petitioner thereupon approached the learned Magistrate by filing application dated 26.3.2009 and requested the learned Magistrate to add Sections 326 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate by impugned order dated 22^nd April, 2009 opined that on the basis of medical evidence, no case for offence under Section 326 and 307 is made out. Petitioner is therefore before this Court in the present petition.3. Upon perusal of the documents on record, I am of the opinion that learned Magistrate committed no error. 4. However, such issue need not be concluded at this stage when the trial is yet t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »