Gujarat Court February 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.
Mahesh @ Mayur Ukabhai Koli. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, except, the present one, there is only one case of similar nature, registered against the petitioner. He is in jail since 21.12.2010. The investigation is over, however, the charge-sheet is, yet, to be presented.2. In addition to the above, I have also considered the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the sentence provided under the law, for the alleged offences. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-222/2010, registered with BHAKTINAGAR POLICE STATION, Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections-454, 457, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five 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 injurious to the interest of the...
Prabhudas Shivlal Patel. Vs. Amrutlal Shivlal Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11^th October 2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Dhrangadhra below Exh. 70 in Regular Civil Suit No. 156 of 2005.2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed Special Civil Suit No. 18 of 1997 for declaration and permanent, injunction which is now renumbered as RCS No. 156 of 2005 in the Court Civil Judge (SD) at Dhrangadhra praying against respondent No. 1 original defendant Amrutlal Shivlal Patel that the suit property situated at Dhrangadhra is of the ownership of the petitioner plaintiff and further prayed for permanent injunction against the original defendant No.1 restraining him from causing any hindrances in the possession of the said property by the petitioner plaintiffs.3. The petitioner also made application dated 7^th July 2000 at Exh. 25 for amendment of the plaint and to join the necessary and proper party in the suit in view of the subsequent development to the effect that respondent No. 1 ...
Mansukhbhai Manjibhai Patel Andd anr. Vs. Saurashtra Cooperative Bank ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. This petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.12.2006 made by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) in Appeal No.477 of 2005. The following prayers have been made in the petition.21. On the premise mentioned as above, the petitioners pray to Your Lordship that :a. Be pleased to admit this petition,b. Be pleased to quash and set aside the condition imposed by the learned Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal to pay Rs.2,50,000/- each by both the petitioners while granting stay against execution of the decree in Appeal No.477 of 2005 preferred by the petitioners;c. Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the condition imposed by the learned Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal to pay Rs.2,50,00/- each by both the petitioners while granting stay against execution of the decree in Appeal No.477 of 2005 preferred by the petitioners;d. Be pleased to pass such other an...
Uday R. Purandare. Vs. Aims Chemicals Pvt.Ltd and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Uday R.Purandare, petitioner-original plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the learned 3^rd Addl. 2. Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara - order below application Exh.15 for leave to defend in Special Summary Civil Suit No.250 of 2005 filed by the petitioner herein.3. I have heard Mr.Kogje, learned advocate for the petitioner. 4. He has stated that the aforesaid order of the learned Judge is contrary to and inconsistent with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers v. M/s.Basic Equipment Corporation reported in AIR 1977 SC 577 as well as judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.22891 of 2006 in the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., decided on 1.12.2006.5. Hence Notice returnable on 22^nd January, 2007....
Shri Ramprakash Basantram SharmA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Mr. Pardiwala, learned advocate for the applicant, requests that he be permitted to join Collector, Valsad as party respondent No.2.Permission is granted. Amendment be carried out during the course of the day.2. NOTICE to the newly added respondent. Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP, waives service of notice for respondent No.2.3. Present Revision Application is filed being aggrieved by order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umargam dated 27.09.2006 below an application preferred under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the tanker, bearing Registration No. MWU 7118 filled with Formal D-Hyde Chemical inside the same in connection with an offence registered at Bhilad Police Station, being C.R. No. II-52/2006.The learned JMFC is pleased to reject the application, saying that neither the tanker nor the chemical contained therein is taken as muddamal in the aforesaid offence registered at Bhilad Police Station and, therefore, no order can be passe...
Asif Fatemamad Suleman Khole. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at C.R.No.I-101 of 2010 with Kamlabaug police station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 276 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. Considering the statement of victim, Hetalben, dated 28.10.2010 and other attending circumstances, this application for bail may kindly be considered.5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant and the statement of victim, Hetalben, dated 28.10.2010 and other attending circumstances, without discussing the evidence in...
Baldevbhai Mavjibhai Joshi. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Rule. Mr. learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered being CR No.I- 72 of 2010 with Pethapur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that now charge sheet is filed and the main accused, brother of the applicant, though not traceable, the role attributed to the applicant and the charge against the accused is of accompanying his brother and no amount is received from the applicant herein, by imposing suitable conditions, the applicant be enlarged on bail.4. Heard learned APP Mr. for the respondent State who opposed the application and submitted that looking to the role attributed to the accused, he may not be enlarged on bail.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and t...
Jashvantlal Ramanlal Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Leave to amend.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither signatory of the cheque nor was it drawn from his account and the said fact is born out form the complaint itself. It is further submitted that the disputes arise out of possession of the flat and allegations are levelled against one Mahesh Ramanbhai Patel. 3. It is further submitted that no liability can be fastened to the petitioner under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 nor any offence, as alleged, could be said to have been committed.4. Considering the above aspects and prima facie it appears that the allegations are against respondent No.2 and the petitioner is neither signatory of the cheque nor was it drawn from his account, issue Rule.5. Ms CM Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent State of Gujarat.6. Interim relief in terms of para 7(C) till further order. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 1^st March, 2011. Direct service is pe...
Jayesh Lakhmanbhai KakadiyA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Rule. Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Present application is filed by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to suspend the sentence imposed upon him vide judgment and order dated 20^th January 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No.35 of 2009 by releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal.3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Rajkot, by his judgment and order dated 20^th January 2011 convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed fine of Rs.05,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.4. Heard Mr.Parth Tolia, learned counsel for the applicant...
Kamendubhai S. AcharyA. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. At the request of the petitioner who has appeared in person, he is permitted to be represented by the learned advocate Mr.Anil N.Mehta.2. Heard the learned advocates Mr.Mehta and Mr.Shelat.3. The petitioner, President of Ahmedabad Municipal Mazdoor Association ( a labour Union operating in the respondent Corporation), has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that this Court should direct the Corporation to implement the settlement arrived at between the Union and the Corporation on 24^th October, 2005 and the order of the Division Bench dated 26^th October, 2005 passed in terms of the aforesaid settlement in Letters Patent Appeal No.1413/2005.4. Mr.Mehta has relied upon the terms of settlement at Annexure-'I' to the petition particularly clause (6) thereof. In the submission of Mr.Mehta, under the said clause (6) the Corporation had agreed to effect the revised pay-scale with effect from 1^st January, 1976. The said clause (6),...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »