Gujarat Court February 2011 Judgments
Bhagwatiprasad Hosilaprasad Dubey . Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
1. Present applications are filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for releasing him on regular bail in connection with CR No.I-96 of 2010, CR No.I-97 of 2010 and CR No.I-99 of 2010 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat in the respective application for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 411, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard Mr.R.R. Marshall, learned senior counsel with Mr.Adil Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.3. Mr.Marshall has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He has also contended that nothing is recovered from the present applicant. Mr.Marshall has read the First Information Report and contended this is a case of civil in nature, for which the complainant could have filed Civil Suit for recovery of the amount. He has also read the provision o...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok @ Ashok Bullet Arjanbhai ChovatiA. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail, which is a successive bail application after filing of the Criminal Misc. Application No.1088/2010.2. The applicant accused is charged with having committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 302, 326, 188, 504, 120(B), 212, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, for which, FIR being I-C.R.No.414/2009 has been lodged at Umara Police Station.3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.D. Nanavati appearing with learned counsel, Mr.B.C. Davel for the applicant has submitted that the investigation is over, all other co-accused have been released on bail except the present applicant and trial is likely to take time. He also submitted a chart giving details about the release of other co-accused either by the High Court or by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He, therefore, submitted that subject to any condition, considering his role, the present application may be allowed.4. Learne...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat - Thro' B J Patel - Food Inspector and Anr. vs. Vikra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 24^th May 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.72 of 2000 for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them.2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that on 30^th August 2000, the complainant-Food Inspector visited the company of Shri Patel Prahladbhai Tribhovan at about 16:00 hours. At that point of time, respondent No.2-accused was present and serving there. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased 500 ml. milk of "New Adarsh Shakti Pasteurized Tond Milk Company" as a sample after paying consideration. It is also the case of the complainant that after following due procedure of sealing, the sample w...
Tag this Judgment!Naineshkumar Jagdishchandra Shah,undertrial Prisoner. Vs. State of Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. She, further, pointed out that co-accused have been released on bail.2. In addition to the above, I have also perused the contents of the FIR and other material on record, in particular, with respect to the role of the petitioner, who is stated to have helped the main accused, in opening a bogus bank account through which the defalcation of money took place. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with I-C.R. NO. 85/2010, registered with ANAND TOWN POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-420, 120(B), 467, 468, 465, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand), with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that, he shall:(1). not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;(2). not act in a manner injur...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Natvarlal Chauhan. Vs. Morbi Nagar PalikA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9591/10, whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court by allowing the petition.2. Heard Mr.Devnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.3. We may state that for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the main petition.4. The relevant facts are that the appellant-original petitioner was engaged by the Municipality as daily wager in the set up of the Municipality. He was discontinued as daily wager which gave rise to the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act ("the Act" for short) at the instance of the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the evidence had come on record that the original petitioner had worked for 215 days with the Municipality. However, the Labour Court by relying upon the decis...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Gujarat State and anr. Vs. Vima ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Mr.N.D. Nanavati, learned senior counsel, states that in this matter, earlier he was appearing on behalf of the appellant. He has contended that now he is not on the panel of the appellant-Authority and therefore, he cannot appear in the matter. Therefore, this Court called Mr.B.T. Rao, learned counsel, who is on the panel of the appellant-Authority. All the papers pertaining to the matter have been provided to Mr.Rao and thereafter, he argued the matter.2. The appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 08^th December 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umbergaon, in Criminal Case No.2098 of 1986, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the opponent Nos.1 to 5-original accused from the charges levelled against them.3. The short facts of the complainant is that the opponent No.1 is the firm managed by the opponent Nos.2...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Bansidhar BehrA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2011
1. Rule. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.2. Having regard to the facts of the case, this application is taken up for hearing today.3. The applicant convict-prisoner who vide judgement and order dated 30.6.2007 rendered in N.D.P.S. Case No. 2 of 2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, has been convicted for the offences under Section 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for both the aforesaid offences, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Application praying for suspension of sentence and to release him on bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal.4. We have considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the applicant and Mr. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat. We have also perused the averments made in the application so also the impugned judgement and order and t...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr. Vs. Vimal Enterprise ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2011
1. Mr.N.D. Nanavati, learned senior counsel, states that in this matter, earlier he was appearing on behalf of the appellant. He has contended that now he is not on the panel of the appellant-Authority and therefore, he cannot appear in the matter. Therefore, this Court called Mr.B.T. Rao, learned counsel, who is on the panel of the appellant-Authority. All the papers pertaining to the matter have been provided to Mr.Rao and thereafter, he argued the matter.2. The appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 08^th December 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umbergaon, in Criminal Case No.2101 of 1986, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the opponent Nos.1 to 5-original accused from the charges levelled against them.3. The short facts of the complainant is that the opponent No.1 is the firm managed by the opponent Nos.2...
Tag this Judgment!Vepari Umarbhai Jamalbhai and ors. Vs. Abdulrauf Gulam MayodIn VorA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2011
1. Heard the learned advocate. The appellants, defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.42/1991, have preferred this Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and order dated 22^nd August, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patan in Regular Civil Appeal No.214/2002.2. The respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing City Survey No.2327 Seat No.45 (Nagar Panchayat No.E/5/27) situated at Radhanpur. The defendants are the owners of the house next to the plaintiff on the northern side. The defendants made certain constructions on the wall between the two houses and placed ventilators and windows in it.3. The subject matter of dispute are the said constructions. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.42/1991 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Radhanpur. According to the plaintiff, the suit wall was of his exclusive ownership; the defendants had no right to make any construction over it and had no right to create easementary right by placing disputed ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Veer Enterprises, Through Kalpeshbhai Dhirajbhai Darji. Vs. Union ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2011
1. Rule. Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. Rule is fixed forthwith. At the request of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today.2. The petitioner, a contractor, supplying labour to the ONGC has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the respondent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, calling upon the petitioner to deposit total amount of Rs.15,21,812.16 for payment to the concerned employees as per annexure appended to the order with the authority. This Court (Coram : M.R. Shah, J.), on 30.09.2010 issued notice by making following observation :"NOTICE, only for the purpose of quantum of penalty on condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount towards the wages and 50% of the penalty with the appropri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »