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.
Ketan Hasmukhbhai Soni. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. RULE. Mr.L B. Dabhi, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.2. By instant application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for suspension of sentence of imprisonment of life awarded to him and to release him on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered criminal appeal. .3. We have heard learned advocates for the parties.4. At the time of hearing of this application, Mr.N. K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant does not press this application and seeks leave to withdraw the same.5. Mr.L. B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat has no objection if leave as prayed for is granted. Hence, leave to withdraw the application is granted.6. The application stands rejected as it is withdrawn. Rule is discharged....
Patel Hareshbhai Arvindbhai Through P.O.A.Holder Peti.No.3 and ors. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27^th April 2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Modasa, below Exh.41 in Civil Suit No.33 of 2009, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application Exh.41 of the petitioners.2. Mr.H.K. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of M/s.Patel Advocates for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners and their advocate always remained present before the trial Court and they never tried to avoid the Court proceedings; that in view of filing of the criminal proceedings against the respondents, the petitioners could not file reply in time; that as the petitioners wanted to place report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along with the reply, they could not file reply in time. In view of aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that present petition may be allowed.3. Mr.S.K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent, has relied upo...
Rahimsha Subratisha Diwan. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is also filed. He has no criminal antecedents. Learned Counsel drew my attention to the FIR, wherein the role attributed to the present petitioner is of having given hockey blows to the complainant and another injured witness. However, he contended that there are no corresponding serious injuries caused to any of them. Learned Counsel, further, contended that the petitioner has not given any fatal blow, such blows were given by another accused.2. Considering the above, prima facie, aspects of the matter and considering that the trial is unlikely to complete shortly and since charge-sheet is also filed, I find this is a fit case for granting bail. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-43/2010, registered with VASAD POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and ...
Rameshbhai Jivabhai Vankar. 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 char sheet.2. The applicant accused is charged with having committed offences under Section 25(1)(1-A-B) of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, for which, FIR being II-C.R.No.59/2009 has been lodged at Thasra Police Station.3. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel, Mr.Kharadi for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to approach again if the trial is not over by the end of May, 2011. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. 4. This application stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged....
Dehur Hana Bharwa and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Rule. 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- 204 of 2010 with Kishanwadi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 333, 395, 447 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 3 and 7 of Public Properties Damages Act and sections 12 and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that looking to the role attributed and the nature of offence and the punishment prescribed for such offences and now that the charge sheet is filed, by imposing suitable conditions, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.Heard learned APP for the respondent State. He has submitted that looking to the gravity of offence and the role attributed to the petitioners, they may not be enlarged on bail.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the ca...
Commissioner of Custom. Vs. 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 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...
Yogirajsinh Kishoresinh Vadher. Vs.State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of rule in each of the petitions for the respondent-State.2. These petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are filed with following prayers:"(a) Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition;(b) Your Lordships be pleased to allow this petition by way of quashing and setting aside the complaint being CR No.I-447 of 2010 filed before Malaviya Nagar Police Station, Rajkot at Annexure-A;(c) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further investigation and all subsequent proceedings in pursuance of the complaint being CR No.I-447 of 2010 filed before Malaviya Nagar Police Station, Rajkot at Annexure-A;(d) To pass any other appropriate and just order/s;"3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submit that petitioners are students and due to misunderstanding the complaints have been filed and due to intervention of elderly persons and having realized consequences of the a...
Deepakkumar Tribhovandas Patel. Vs. Ashwinbhai Haribhai Patel.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order 20t May 2010 passed by the 7^th Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Surat, below application Exh.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.1012 of 1983.2. Mr.N.M. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the present petitioners had earlier filed Special Civil Application No.13378 of 2008 before this Court and this Court on 23^rd December 2008 has while disposing of the said petition passed the following order :"1. Rule. Shri R.M.Chhaya, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-original plaintiffs have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed...
Nilesh Jagubhai Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. RULE. Learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He will cooperate with the investigation, if released on bail.2. Considering the above, prima facie, aspects of the matter and considering that the trial is unlikely to complete shortly, as also the punishment prescribed under the law for the offence alleged, I find this is a fit case for granting bail.3. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. III-19/2011, registered with NAVSARI(RURAL) POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-66(1)(B), 65 A and E, 116(2) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 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 a...
Commissioner of Customs. Vs. M/S Act Shipping Ltd.
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »