Gujarat Court February 2011 Judgments
The State of Gujarat. Vs. Manyo @ Mohan @ Manoj Bhikha Solanki and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2011
1. The above referred criminal appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra on 1^st June, 2004 in Sessions Case No.21/1999 whereby all the four opponents being accused of the said Sessions Case came to be acquitted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302 to r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. In preferring the criminal appeal, the delay has been caused of 53 days and hence, this application by the State for condo nation of delay.3. Learned APP Mr.P.D.Bhate for the State was heard in detail. Though learned advocate Mr.P.S.Champaneri for the opponents has filed a leave note, but this being criminal matter, we have carefully gone through the application.4. Having gone through the record and the grounds advanced by the State for condo nation of delay, it clearly appears that as averred in paragraphs No.4, 5 and 6 of the application, the delay of 53 days has been caused on accou...
Tag this Judgment!A R Patel. Vs. Narayanlal Gulabji Gurjart and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2011
1. The appellant-Food Inspector has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 12^th May 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.84 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.1-accused of the charges levelled against him by giving benefit of doubt.2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant is serving as Food Inspector in the Health Flying Squad Department of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. It is the case of the complainant that on 19^th December 2003 the complainant-Food Inspector has visited the shop of the respondent No.1-accused along with his Peon. It is the case of the complainant that at that time the respondent No.1-accused was present and was doing business. It is the case of the complain...
Tag this Judgment!M/S D C Yadav, Through Proprietor, Dhruvraj Chhotalal Yadav. 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!ibrahim Alibhai Vehmi and anr. Vs. Amina Wd/O Abdullah Ismali Adam and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2011
1. The petitioners, co-owners of the disputed land Block No.393, Survey No.99/1 admeasuring 3-Acres-17-Gunthas of village Japar, taluka and District Bharuch has preferred the present petition to challenge the judgment and order dated 31^st May, 1991 passed by the State Government [Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department] in Revision Application No.232/1984.2. The subject matter of dispute is the revenue entry No.3527 dated 4^th June, 1973 made in the village form No.8. From the record as it is, it appears that originally the land stood in the name of the petitioner no.2 Valimohammed Ismail Khandhiya. By impugned entry No.3527 dated 4^th June, 1973, the name of the petitioner no.1 Ibrahim Vehmi was entered as a co-owner. On 12^th October, 1973 the said entry was certified by the Circle Officer, Nabipur. 3. The said entry was challenged by the respondents before the Assistant Collector on 9^th March, 1984. According to the respondents, the said land was subject matter of...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadraben Sanabhai Prajapati C/O Jagrut Mahila SangatA. Vs. Jayantib ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. The petitioner is the complainant. He has challenged judgement of acquittal dated 30.9.2009 rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case No.30/2009. Respondents No. 1 to 6 are the original accused.2. Case of the prosecution was that aged mother of the complainant residing alone, was found dead in mysterious circumstances in the house. Accused who had previously quarrelled with the family of the complainant were therefore, prime suspects. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against them. On the allegation that they had committed murder of the mother of the complainant, the Sessions case proceeded. After recording evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned judgement acquitted all the accused finding no evidence of having committed the offences.3. Upon perusal of the judgement under consideration, though at first sight, it appears to be a rather short discussion of evidence on record, while going through record and...
Tag this Judgment!Parasnath Ram Achal Shukla and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Rule. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned A.P.P. waives the service of Rule. At the request of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. The following aspects are considered :i. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with the offence registered as C.R No. II-51 of 2006 with Bilimora Police Station punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.ii. The prosecution has prima facie failed to prove any case against the applicants for not granting anticipatory bail.In that view of the matter, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence the following order is passed:-Order3. In the event of the arrest of the applicants in Crime Register No. II- 51 of 2006 with Bilimora Police Station, they shall be released on bail in respect of the offence alleged against them in this application on their each executing bonds of Rs. 5,000/-(Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Shardaben Bhimjibhai Kalani and ors. Vs. Kuntal Kalpeshkumar Kalani.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners.2. It is submitted that earlier Criminal Complaint No.936 of 2009 filed under Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband and father-in-law and mother-in-law came to be withdrawn as per the order dated 03.05.2010.3. So far as offence registered under Section 498A, 504, 506(2), 497, 114, 323 of the IPC and Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said FIR came to be quashed and set aside Nos. 3 to 5 of the said application in Criminal Misc. Application No.13244 of 2010 vide earlier judgment dated 20.12.2010. However, they are again joined as respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 in the impugned complaint.4. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8 being elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law and uncle and aunt-in-laws. The above attempt of initiating proceedings by the complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is being undertaken with ulterior motive to see that all in-laws...
Tag this Judgment!Firoz Karimbhai @ Lalbava Shaikh and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. He drew my attention to the FIR and, more particularly, to the role attributed to the present petitioners and contended that so far as petitioner No.1, original accused No.2 is concerned, he is stated to have wielded baseball bat. Insofar as petitioner No.2, original accused No.4 is concerned, he was alleged to be carrying a stick, but, not giving any blows on vital parts of the body of the injured. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, further, submitted that the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital, after full recovery.1.1 Learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr. Ekant Ahuja, learned Advocate for the original complainant, however, submitted that the injuries were serious in nature and the injured persons had to be hospitalized for a considerable period of time.2. Considering the above, prima facie, aspects of...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer. Vs. Govindbhai Chhaganbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 3. Respondent No.2 is reported to be expired during the pendency of the Reference before Labour Court on 13^th April,2007.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.3. The present application has been preferred by the applicants original petitioners to modify / clarify/ recall the order dated 31/08/2010 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.11064/2009.4. It is the case on behalf of the applicants that vide order dated 31/08/2010 while disposing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.11064/2009, this Court directed the applicants to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act considering the earlier order passed by this Court as well as also directed to pay Rs.40,000/- in lieu of reinstate...
Tag this Judgment!AshwIn Vanaspati Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-i.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the notice, the reason is given only that, 'the transfer is proposed to be effected to facilitate coordinated investigation', which is very vague and this cannot be a ground for transfer of the case. He placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Rajesh Mahajan & others vs. Commissioner of Income-tax,[2002] 257 ITR 577, wherein, on identical fact-situation, it is held that the reasons recorded are not relevant for transfer and the order of transfer was held to be not valid. 2. At page 589 of the aforesaid decision in Rajesh Mahajan [supra], the cases referred are: (i) Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief CIT, [1991] 187 ITR 405 [AP]; (ii) Saptagiri Enterprises v. CIT, [1991] 189 ITR 705 (AP); (iii) Y. Moideen Kunhi and Co. v. ITO, [1993] 204 ITR 29 [Karn]. Shivajirao Angre vs. CIT, [1986] 158 ITR 162 [MP]; and (iv) Power Controls vs. CIT, [2000] 241 ITR 807 (Delhi).3. Mr. Soparkar, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »