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.
Chandulal Margabhai Patel. Vs. Torrent Aec Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Rule. The endorsement on the board indicates that both the respondents are duly served with notice for final disposal of the petition. However, none of the respondents has appeared through its Lawyer nor through its constituted agent, nor any of them has filed reply controverting the averments made in the petition. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary for the petitioner to effect service of notice of rule issued in the petition, upon the respondents. Having regards to the facts of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.2. By filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent No.1 i.e. The Torrent A.E.C.Ltd., to supply electricity connection to Bungalow No.3 belonging to him, which is situated at Chandkheda, without insisting for production of Building Use Permission. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondent No.2 i.e. Ahmedabad Urban Development Author...
Bharuch District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. Vs. Abhivyakti Ent ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. The matter relates to recovery of dues under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner-Bank has taken steps u/s. 13 (4) of the said Act, which the borrower has challenged before the D.R.T-II, Ahmedabad.2. Because of pendency of the case before the D.R.T., the petitioner is not in a position to recover the amount. The grievance raised is that, though the matter is pending for more than one year, but the final order has not been passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T-II, Ahmedabad.3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.4. Recovery of dues to Banks & Financial Institutions takes much time before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction, taking into consideration aforesaid fact, the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was promulgated. 5. The Banks/Financial Institutions, without moving before the Court of law, have ...
Chimanlal Gopaldas Patel. Vs. Ganesh Park Cooperative Housing Society ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. RULE.2. The present application has been preferred by the applicant-original appellant permitting him to serve the opponents by substituting service as provided under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Having heard Shri Parthiv Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and considering the averments made in the application, prayer in terms of paragraph 5(A) is hereby granted and the applicant is permitted to serve the opponents by substituted service as provided under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure by giving public advertisement in two local newspapers in vernacular language i.e.4. Divya Bhaskar and Gujarat Samachar in Ahmedabad edition.5. With this, the present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent....
Arvind Shanabhai. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. RULE. Mr. H.J. Jani, learned APP, waives, service of Rule on behalf of the respondents..2. Present application is filed through jail seeking modification of order dated 19.09.2006 passed by this Court granting 20 days temporary bail on condition that "on convict executing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the jail authorities". The present applicant could not avail the said temporary bail of 20 days as he was not able to provide a surety of the like amount (of Rs. 5,000/-).3. The jail report is on record. The applicant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad by judgment and order dated 10.08.2004. By now, he has undergone major part of the sentence. 4. Out of three years, he is already in jail for last about two years and eight months. He has not enjoyed any parole or temporary bai...
National Insurance Company Limited Through Regional Office. Vs. Indian ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant herein appellant original opponent No.2 National Insurance Company Limited to stay further execution, implementation and operation of the judgement and award dated 30/03/2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.385/2006.2. While issuing Rule in the present Civil Application, learned Single Judge granted ad-interim relief by passing following order:"Rule returnable on 1^st February 2010. Ad interim stay is granted on condition that the applicant shall deposit the entire awarded amount on or before the returnable date.3. On deposit of the same 70% of the amount shall be deposited by way of a fixed deposit, to be retained with Nazir of the Tribunal, with a nationalised bank initially for a period of three years, and on maturity shall be renewed by one year at a time without any further orders in this regard till the disposal of the appeal. The remaining 30% shall be all...
Narpatsing Mansang Parmar. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. By the present revision application, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 22.7.1999 of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, dismissing his application for discharge in Special Case No.24/94 in which charge-sheet for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was filed. The petitioner had applied for discharge on the ground that previous sanction required under the provisions of section 19 of the Act was not granted by the officer competent to remove him from service since the authority appointing him was District Development Officer whereas the sanction was granted by Dy. Development Officer. The petitioner relied, in the trial court as well as in this court, upon the judgment of this Court dated 7.7.1998 in Criminal Revision Application No.513/97, wherein it was not disputed that the cadre of Talati-cum-Mantri was a district cadre and the disciplinary authority competent to impose pen...
Jamil @ Salim Mubarak. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. By way of present application, the applicant-prisoner has filed the present application for bail, who is convicted by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.7, Surat in Sessions Case Nos.279 of 2005 and 64 of 2006 for a period of seven years punishable under Section 307, 114 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1), A, B, 27 and 28 of the Arms Act. 2. It is the say of the applicant-prisoner that he wants to make some financial arrangement to help his family. He, therefore, prayed to release him on bail.3. Heard Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused papers produced before me. 4. Looking to the application of the applicant-prisoner, it appears that the applicant is convicted for a period of seven years and also imposed fine of Rs.14,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo for a further period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 307, 114 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1), A...
Kanizaben Abbasbhai TinwalA. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. The petitioner herein has prayed for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities directing them to search and seize all the articles and muddamal mentioned in the complaint.2. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies provided under the Code more particularly approaching the higher authorities at district level/District Superintendent of Police. 3. When such a remedy is open to the petitioner, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue directions to the police authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. Under the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the matter this petition is disposed of with an observation.5. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority/court with appropriate application in which case the concerned authority/court shall consider the same in accordance with law....
Smt. Madhulika Manoj Agrawal. Vs. Sheweta Rameshchandra GuptA.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. The applicant-original accused in Criminal Case No.2015 of 2000 being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 27^th March 2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad (Rural), which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2006 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.6, Ahmedabad (Rural) by his judgement and order dated 11^th July 2006 is before this Court.1.1 The present Criminal Revision Application was filed on 17^th July 2006. Initially, order was passed on 24^th July 2006. Learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that the applicant will deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 25^th July 2006 before this Court; thereafter, Rs.50,000/- will be deposited on or before 15.08.2006. Next an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be deposited on or before 15.09.2006 and finally an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be deposited on or before 15.10.2006. Learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Trivedi submitted that all...
Satvirsinh Abhayram Yadav. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the charge-sheet is filed.2. The applicant accused is charged with having committed offence under Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.Code and under Section 25(1) B, A of the Arms Act for which FIR being I.C.R.No. 23 of 2010 has been registered with D.C.B.Police Station, Ahmedabad city.3. Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted referring to the FIR that the role attributed to the applicant is that he had played a role in preparation of forged licence which has been recovered. However, there is no recovery discovery of the weapon as has been recovered from the other co-accused. He, therefore, submitted that as investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, present application may be allowed.4. Learned APP resisted the application and submitted that as stated in the FIR itself, he had got the forged licence prepared which has also be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »