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.
Chemeron (India) Through Partner Devendra G Mistry. Vs. Gujarat Indust ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
Messrs Chemeron (India), a partnership firm through its partner, Devendra G. Mistry is before this Court praying as under:"8(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein to take decision on the applications submitted by the petitioner as per the scheme floated by the authorities dated 09.12.2009 for restoration of the plot being Plot No.C-1B, 17 GIDC, Vapi, District Valsad, with the petitioner, for the reasons mentioned in the memo of petition and in the interest of justice."The petitioner has also prayed as under:"8(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside any decision taken by the authority for the plot in question and the communication dated 29.9.2010 and 19.10.2010 whereby the petit...
Chhabildas Kanjibhai. Vs. Shah Trambaklal Thakershi Since Decd. Throug ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the Executing Court in Darkhast No. 49 of 1984 below Exh. 47 whereby the Executing Court rejected the request to grant time to vacate the suit premises.2. The facts of the case are that on 01.03.1984, the Civil Court, Surendranagar passed decree for possession in Regular Civil Suit No. 217 of 1980. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2005 before the District Court, Surendranagar which came to be dismissed vide judgement and order dated 25.11.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before this Court which also came to dismissed vide judgement and order dated 23.06.2010 and confirmed the decree for possession passed in favour of the original plaintiff. 3. Thereafter, the original plaintiff preferred Execution Petition before the trial Court whereby the Principal Senior Judge, Surendranagar by his order dated 08.01.201...
Mansukhbhai Karshanbhai Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail after filing of the chargesheet.2. The applicantaccused is charged with having committed offences under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) and 3(10)(11) of the S.C. and S.T. Prevention of Atrocity Act, for which, FIR being I-C.R.No.126/2010 has been lodged at Halvad Police Station.3. Learned counsel, Mr.Barot for the applicant referred to the FIR as well as the statements of the complainant-husband as also the medical evidence and submitted that as stated in the certificate itself that the victim is married woman and had sex with her husband. He submitted that manner in which the offence has taken place therefore cannot be believed or accepted. He further submitted that as now the investigation is over, the present application may be allowed in light of the medical evidence.4. Learned A.P.P., Mr.Raval resisted the present ap...
Ramanbhai Becharbhai Parmar and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of Rule for the respondent-State.2. This is an application filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code") by the accused in connection with FIR being CR -I No.186 of 2010 registered with Kalol Taluka police station, Dist. Gandhinagar for offences punishable under sections 306, 498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act.3. Earlier, the applicant had filed bail application before this court under section 439 of the Code, which came to be rejected vide order dated 3.12.2010, in which this Court had taken into consideration all relevant submissions made by the learned Advocate for the applicants along with section 107 of the Indian Penal Code about abetment of a thing and the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the applicants.4. In view of the above, the contentions of the learned Advocate for the applicants that certain observations and findings based on allegation...
Balwant Jivabhai. 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 14.12.2005 rendered in Sessions Case No.142 of 2002 by the learned Presiding Officer, 5^th Fast Track Court, Panchmahal at Godhara has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment of life, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 15 days, to enable him to attend the religious ceremony i.e. badha ceremony of his son.4. Having heard Mr. RC Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and upon perusal of the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet, since the applicant has not made out case for releasing him on temporary bail, we a...
Ajaysinh Pravinsinh Vadher. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even, as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is not directly involved in the offence of murder, punishable under Section-302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner comes into picture after the incident took place. He is stated to have helped the main accused in escaping from the hospital, after taking the treatment. She, further, pointed out that a co-accused, under somewhat similar circumstances, has been released on bail, by an order of this Court, dated 13.01.2011.2. In addition to the submissions made above, I have also perused the allegations, against the petitioner, made in the complaint and also considering the role attributed to him by the investigating agency and when a co-accused, with somewhat similar allegations, has been released on bail, I see no reason to deny parity to the present petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-231/2010...
Commissioner of Customs. Vs. Balakrishnan Devidayal M/S Kuppi Utapadan ...
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...
Purushottamsingh S Sinsinwar. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. J.K.Shah,waives service of rule on behalf of respondent State.2. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is aged about 60 years. He has no criminal antecedents. Allegations against him are general in nature of having harassed his daughter-in-law. He pointed out that specific allegation of offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is made against the husband and not the present petitioner.3. Considering the above, prima facie, aspects of the matter, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No.I-137/2010 registered with Chandkheda Police Station and he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the following conditions that he :[A] shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.[B] shall remain pres...
Bharatbhai Hemabhai Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
Rule. Learned APP Mr. J.K.Shah waives service of rule on behalf of respondent State.Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. Except for offence under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, rest of the offences indicated in the FIR are bailable. He submitted that dispute arises out of the land property.Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter, the applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No.I-170/2010 registered with Patan Taluka Police Station and they shall be released on bail upon their furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the following conditions that they:[A] shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.[B] shall remain present at Patan Taluka Police Station on 7.2.2011 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm:...
Dilipbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He, further, submitted that, even as per the complaint, the petitioner is not the owner of the land, allegedly and fraudulently sold for the second time. He drew my attention to the nature of allegations made in the complaint, to contend that the petitioner has not been attributed any specific role.2. In addition to the above, I have also perused the statements of witnesses, collected by the Investigating Agency. Since, the investigation is, yet, to be completed, I do not find it appropriate to make any elaborate observations on the contents of such statements. Suffice it to say that looking to the role attributed to the petitioner, it is not necessary to detain him in custody. nder the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-13/2010, registered with CID CRIME POLICE STATION, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections-406, 420...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »