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.
Nareshwan Prahladwan Goswami. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed. She contended that there is no recovery or discovery from the present petitioner. There is no direct evidence to link the petitioner with the alleged offence.2. In addition to considering the above submissions, I have also perused the nature of evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. Since, the trial is, yet, to be conducted, it would not be appropriate on my part to make any conclusive observations with respect to the evidence on record. However, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also looking to the fact that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with I-C.R. NO. 30/2005, registered with BHUJ CITY POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-392 of the Indian Penal Code, Section-25(1)(A), 120(B) of the Arms Act and Section-135 of the Bomb...
Chandubhai Maganbhai Rathod. 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 06^th January 2011 passed by the learned Special Designated Judge and 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Special Electricity Case No.07 of 2009 by releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal.3. The learned Special Designated Judge and 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, by his judgment and order dated 06^th January 2011 convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed fine of Rs.21,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.4. Heard Ms.Medha P...
Commissioner of Customs. Vs. Brijesh Agarwal.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. In this appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla has challenged common order dated 24^th March, 2006 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) proposing the following questions:-i. Whether the Advance Licence obtained under DEEC Scheme and against which fulfilment of Export obligation was on the basis of misstatements/misdeclaration by submitting forged/fake export documents before the DGFT is to be treated as a valid and legal document?ii. Whether the import made on the authority of Advance licence obtained/transferred on the basis of forged/fake/manipulated export documents are lawful imports and exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.204/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992? iii. Whether the importer as defined in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes the licence holder for the purpose of Notification 204/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992 being any person holding himself to be the importer...
Commissioner of Customs. Vs. Shailesh Agarwal.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. In this appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla has challenged common order dated 24^th March, 2006 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) proposing the following questions:-i. Whether the Advance Licence obtained under DEEC Scheme and against which fulfillment of Export obligation was on the basis of misstatements/misdeclaration by submitting forged/fake export documents before the DGFT is to be treated as a valid and legal document?ii. Whether the import made on the authority of Advance licence obtained/transferred on the basis of forged/fake/manipulated export documents are lawful imports and exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.204/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992? iii. Whether the importer as defined in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes the licence holder for the purpose of Notification 204/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992 being any person holding himself to be the importe...
Chirag Padmakant Bhatt. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Heard Mr P P Majmudar, learned Advocate for the applicant.2. RULE . Learned APP waives service of Rule for the respondent State and the complainant/respondent No.2 is present in the court.3. It is submitted that the impugned FIR was lodged by the complainant on some misunderstanding and in fact admission in the University abroad was secured but respondent No.2 could not secure VISA and, therefore, now the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the complainant has filed affidavit dated 25.1.2011 and has reiterated therein that if the impugned complaint is quashed, the complainant has no objection.4. Considering the over-all aspects and the affidavit dated 25.1.2011 filed by the complainant and the parties have settled their disputes amicably.5. I am of the opinion that to secure ends of justice, powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised and accordingly prayer in terms of para 12 (A) is granted and the impugned complaint is quashed and s...
Pankajbhai Kantibhai Padhiyar. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. D.C. Sejpal waives service of rule on behalf of respondent State.2. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He pointed out that the girl was aged 17 years and 11 months on the date of incident even as per the FIR. Her statement, recorded by the investigating agency on 19.11.2010, clearly reveals that there was no sexual relation between the applicant and the girl even when the girl was with the applicant for a few days.3. I am surprised why the applicant was not granted bail by the Sessions Court even after charge sheet. In a case of this nature when admittedly there are no allegations of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, when the investigation is over, when the girl was stated to be 1 month short of the legal age of 18 years and when in her statement before the police, she clearly stated that she had left her house on her own volition, it was a fi...
Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd Pune. Vs. Official Liquidator of Anand CotspI ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. This Judge's Summons is taken out by the applicant under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 with a prayer to grant leave to the applicant-Bank to proceed with the pending legal proceeding before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, in Appeal No.23 of 2010 filed against the judgment dated 31.8.2009 passed in Case No. CC/I/338/1998 by the Court of Judge, Cooperative Court No.1, Mumbai.2. Mr. Vasavada, learned counsel for the applicant, while relying upon the affidavit in support of the Judge's Summons and other record pertaining to the appeal filed before the appellate authority, has submitted that the respondent No.2, M/s. Vishal Polyster Private Limited, has approached the Bank with a request to sanction credit facility of bill discounting to it and, accordingly, the applicant-Bank sanctioned facility of bill discounting to respondent No.2 as early as on 5.4.1995 since respondent No.1 is the drawee/accepter of the said facility. Even respondent No.2 had sub...
Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni. Vs. Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. The petitioner is husband of respondent no.1. They got married in the year 2002. Out of the wedlock, wife gave birth to a son on 6.11.2004 named Mihir. Subsequently, however, disputes arose between husband and wife. It is stated that wife and husband reside separately since 17.5.2007. With respect to who is responsible for such separation, there are contradicting versions. It is not necessary for me to go into the same in the present proceedings. It is however, not in dispute that since separation, son is with the father. Here again wife's case is that despite best efforts the custody of the child is not given to her. Again with respect to this, also I propose to make no observations because proceedings for custody of child are pending before the Sessions Court.2. In the present proceedings, husband has challenged an order dated 13.3.2009 passed by learned JMFC, Bhuj in Criminal Application No.481/2008 filed by wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act("the Act" ...
Hasmukh Dahyabhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Rule. Mr. RC Kodekar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.2. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.3. The applicant convict prisoner, who by judgment and order dated 4.4.2006 rendered in Sessions Case No.80 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad Rural, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment of life, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days, to enable him to make necessary arrangement for the treatment of his ailing mother, who has received fracture injury.4. We have gone through the application and the supporting document i.e. medical certificated issued by the concerned doctor that form part of the application and have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. ...
Manharlal Ratilal Bachkaniwala and ors. Vs. Keshubhai Mohanbhai Patel ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged judgement and order dated 02.12.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 263 of 2003 by 7^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exh. 1250, whereby the application was rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners-original plaintiffs instituted Special Civil Suit No. 263 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat, inter alia, seeking a declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 22.01.2003 claimed to have been executed in favour of respondent No. 1 are ab initio void and thereupon respondent No. 1 would not derive any right, title and interest in respect of the concerned properties. The petitioners moved an application at Exh. 1250 under Order 7 Rule 4(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission of the trial court to produce on record the concerned documentary evidence referred to therein. However, present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted their replies i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »