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.
Hansaben Gulabbhai Chaudhary. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"10) The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction:A) Directing the Respondents to apply the judgment dt. 18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and judgment dt.6.8.1999 passed in Special Civil Application no.8181 of 1998 in the case of the petitioner and grant 1^st higher grade scale to the petitioner from 13.2.1990 i.e. after completion of 9 years of service from the date of appointment instead of 28.8.2001 and grant her consequential benefits.B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of higher grade scale w.e.f. 13.2.1990 in light of the judgment dt.18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010.C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit...
Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel Son and Administrator of Ambalal and ors. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Mehsana below Exhibit-273 filed in Special Civil Suit No. 34/2001 dated 23.12.2008, whereby the said application was rejected.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had purchased the property in question from the original land owner vide registered sale deed dated 28.05.1984. Thereafter, respondents nos. 1 to 5 preferred Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 2001 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehsana. In the said suit, the petitioners were not made party, and therefore, they preferred an application for impleading as party, which came was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC preferred application Exhibit-273 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehsana for dismissing the suit in question. However, the trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2008 dismissed the said application. Hence, this peti...
Patabhai Bhagvanbhai Bela and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The petitioners are the original accused. They have challenged an order dated 2.1.2010 passed by learned JMFC, Bhavnagar as confirmed by an order dated 16.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in revision petition before filed by the petitioners.2. Shortly stated facts are as follows : 2.1 Between the petitioner and respondent, there were family disputes. The petitioner had sought and was granted decree of divorce. Respondent wife filed a complaint bearing C.R. No. I-96/2006 alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 etc. of IPC. The petitioner along with other co-accused approached this Court by filing quashing petition. Such quashing petition was however, dismissed by order dated 5.11.2009. The petitioner thereupon filed application exh.26 before learned JMFC contending that upon bare perusal of the complaint, same is barred by limitation. Same should therefore, not be entertained in view of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2...
Natvarlal Premchand Shah and anr. Vs. Savailal Trambaklal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The present First Appeal under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 has been preferred by the appellants-original applicant challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 124/1978 dated 17/02/1982 in exercise of powers under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, which was filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in Revision Application No. 1/1978 dated 14/07/1978.2. Having heard Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and considering the impugned orders passed by the authorities below it appears that the dispute is with respect to Change Report No. 420/1976 of the appointment of the trustees in Yati Shree Lalchandji Vanik Dharmshala Trust. 3. Apart from the fact that there are concurrent findings of fact given by the authorities below it appears that as the disputed Change Report was with respect to the year...
Somabhai Bhaijibhai and anr. Vs. Roshanbhai @ Bhailu Ratilal Patel Adm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jitodiya at Anand in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2010 as well as the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand in Regular Civil Suit No. 38 of 2010.2. The facts in brief as per the petitioners could be set out as under:2.1 The petitioners are original plaintiffs who have filed Civil Suit No. 38 of 2010 for a declaration and permanent injunction inter alia contending that agricultural land situated at village Chikhodra of Revenue Survey No. 222/2 admeasuring hectare 0.80.94 Are of land as well as land of survey No. 222/3 admeasuring Hectare 0.94.57 Are is originally in the ownership of Mahindrabhai. The petitioners are in possession of the suit land since 1950-51 and that the forefather of the plaintiff was cultivating the said land as a protected tenant in 1950-51 and to that effect mutation entry was entered in the record of village form no. 6 v...
Minku S Gandhi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Petitioners are original accused. They seek quashing of complaint bearing C.R.No.I-52 of 2008 filed before GIDC Vatva Police Station on 26.5.2008 and all proceedings arising out of the said complaint.2. Short facts are as follows:2,1 Apparently between the petitioners and complainant, there were business relations. Petitioners had been receiving certain chemicals from the employer of the complainant known as PCL-3 chemicals for the purpose of the factory owned and run by the petitioners. In the complaint, filed on 26.5.2008, the complainant had alleged inter-alia that on 19.5.2008 as instructed by his employer Vipulbhai, he delivered 1000 kgs. of PCL -3 chemical at the factory of the petitioners at Vatva GIDC. He was informed that previously also 3000 kgs of said chemical was supplied for which recovery of Rs.3,96,060/- was to be made. Thus, along with the fresh consignment, total payment of Rs.5,43,060/- was to be received. Accordingly, the complainant carried the chemical to the f...
Nisarg Hotriculture Pvt Ltd Through Director. Vs. Deputy Collector and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1.0 Learned advocate Ms. Mehul S. Shah for the petitioners seeks permission to place on record Notice issued by the authority under Section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.1.1 Permission is granted.2.0 In all these matters, a common question is agitated by the petitioners. The question is that, 'the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty (Valuation), Gandhinagar, by order dated 9^th May 2003 refused to take into consideration the document produced by the applicants of Village: Lunasan, Taluka: Kadi, District: Mehsana on the ground that the document pertains to property situated in two different villages, which are situated in different revenue areas and coupled with that, the Talukas and Districts are also different'. The Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty (Valuation) was of the opinion that the document of different districts cannot be taken into consideration while assessing the value of the property.2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the document of the prope...
Savitaben Lallubhai Pawar. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"10) The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction:A) Directing the Respondents to apply the judgment dt.6.8.1999 passed in Special Civil Application no.8181 of 1998 and judgment dt. 18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and in the case of the petitioner and grant 1^st higher grade scale to the petitioner from 20.6.1992 i.e. after completion of 9 years of service from the date of appointment and grant her consequential benefits and further revise her retirement benefits accordingly.B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of higher grade scale w.e.f. 20.6.1992 in light of the judgment dt.18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010.C) To grant such a...
Laljibhai Ravjibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Pravinbhai Chimanlal Shah and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The petitioners have filed this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed to quash and set aside orders passed below Exhs. 111 and 113 filed in Special Civil Suit No. 125 of 1999 in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad and in the alternative to direct the Court to decide the application Exhs. 111 and 113 afresh on merits.2. Respondent No. 1 Pravinbhai Chimanlal Shah filed Special Civil Suit No. 125 of 1999 against the petitioners and other defendants claiming damages and also took out an injunction application. The petitioners and other defendants appeared in the said suit and contested the Suit by filing written statement as well as reply to the injunction application. The original defendants also filed application Exh. 33 for injunction. The injunction application filed by the original plaintiff being application Exh. 5 and injunction application Exh. 33 filed by the original defendants came to be heard and decided...
Lp PipaliA. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The writ petition is preferred by the petitioner against the Order dated 10^th February 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, passed in Original Application No. 42 of 2004. By the said Order, the Tribunal refused to entertain the application seeking review of the order dated 18^th December 1997 passed in Org. Application No. 561/1993.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Programme Executive under the respondent on 1^st May 1975. According to him, promotion avenue includes temporary and adhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Station Director. 3. On 17^th August 1988, 62 Programme Executives were given ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Station Director. Subsequently, on his representation, the respondents informed that it is a selection post and the criteria for promotion is other than seniority. On 20^th June 1991, another batch of 69 Programme Executives were promoted to the post of Assistant Station Director, who too were junior to the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »