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.
Pp ShuklA. Vs. Secretary and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:"(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue and order writ, in the nature of mandamus and or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.6.1938 and direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner with 18% interest.B) Be pleased to declare the inaction/ delay in correcting the date of birth of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.6.1938 and grant all consequential benefits.(C) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the representation/ recommendation, for correcting the date of the birth of the petitioner.(D) Any other relief to which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in interest of justice."2. The matt...
General Manage. Vs. Patel Vithalbhai Narandas Hansrajbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. As common question of law and facts arises in these group of appeals and they arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana dated 29/10/2001 in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1229 to 1233 of 1997 all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The lands in question of the original claimants, which were already under temporary acquisition by the appellant-ONGC were sought to be permanently acquired and, therefore, a proposal came to be accepted and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came to be published on 08/03/1994 and notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 12/10/1995. All the claimants were served with the notices as required under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act and, thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on 30/10/1996 determining to award compensation for the acqu...
Karamsinhbhai Valibhai KarosanA. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has challenged the validity of complaint bearing C.R.No.II-3026 of 2008 of Limbdi Police Station as at Annexure A. The petition is pressed mainly on the ground that the FIR is for offences under the Mines and Minerals Act and no cognizance of FIR therefore can be taken and only upon a complaint before the Magistrate cognizance of such offence can be taken. 2. However, the issue was considered at length by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.5230 of 2010 and connected matters decided on 3^rd September 2010 in which following conclusions have been arrived at :3. Section 22 of the Act does not prohibit registering an FIR by the police on information being given with respect to offences punishable under the said Act or the Rules made there under:-1. It is, however, not open for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act or the Rules made there under on a mere charge sheet filed by the police. It...
Mena Kalubhai BaraiyA. Vs Gujarat Vij Co Ltd and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, and/or directions/s directing the respondents to reconsider the merit of the petitioner and give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Vidhyut Sahayak(Junior Assistant) within a period of three weeks or within the stipulated time as may be fixed by this Honourable Court.[B] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad-interim/interim relief directing the respondents to reconsider the merit of the petitioner for the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Vidhyut Sahayak(Junior Assistant).[C] Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice."...
Keyurkumar Kantilal Shah. 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 filed. He further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after considerable delay. He contended that the co-accused have been released on bail. He admitted that the petitioner is facing other criminal accusations. He, however, submitted that in some of them he has been acquitted and in the rest, he is granted bail.2. In addition to the above contentions, I have also perused the allegations made in the complaint. Considering, prima facie, that the FIR has been lodged after the considerable delay and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the co-accused have been released on bail, I see no reason why the petitioner should be denied parity. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-13/2010, registered with DCB CRIME POLICE STATION, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 384, 323, 506(1) and 120(B...
Shailesh Hanubhai Bharvad. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. This is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant, who came to be arrested in connection with C.R. No.I- 39 of 2010 registered with Kishanvadi Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 365, 368, 452, 596(2), 323, 120(B), 467, 468, 471, 419 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned advocate Mr. Padhya appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he is not involved in the commission of the offence at all. There is no prima facie case made out against the applicant and investigation is over and charge-sheet is also filed. He further submitted that from the papers of charge-sheet, it appears that there is no any evidence against the present applicant. The two co-accused of the said FIR have been released by this Court vide order dated 22.6.2010 and 24.6.2010. He further submitted that even the main accused namely Malvikaben Patel, who was the mastermind ...
Mohmadkhan @ Asif Bismillakhan. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Even, as per the role attributed by the Investigating Agency, the petitioner was waiting on his motorcycle, for the principal accused to get away, after the commission of the offence.2. Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter and considering that the trial is unlikely to complete shortly, as also the role attributed to the petitioner, 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 I-C.R. NO. 643/2009, registered with ELLISBRIDGE POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-307, 114, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections-25(1)(B), (A), and 27(1) of the Arms 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 adva...
Shrikant @ Lalo Bipinchandra (Bipinbhai) Yoganandi. Vs. State of Gujar ...
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. The petitioner is in jail since 17.06.2010. He, further, pointed out that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.2. In addition to the above submissions, I have also perused the allegations made in the FIR, the statement of the daughter of the complainant, who was aged about 17 years at the time of the incident. At this stage, when the trial is, yet, to be conducted, I do not find it appropriate to elaborate on the nature of the version given by the girl. However, suffice it to say that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and since the charge-sheet is filed, it is no longer necessary to detain the petitioner in custody. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. NO. I-61/2010, registered with KAMLABAUG POLICE STATION, for the offences punishable under Sections-363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, on...
Divyarajsinh Savjubhai Jadeja and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is 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-448 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-448 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 the students and due to misunderstanding the complaint had been filed and due to intervention of elderly persons and having realized consequences of the action taken both the ...
State of Gujarat Thro' D.G. Shah. vs. Dermocare Laboratories and Ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.126/97. The case pertains to offence punishable under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 allegedly committed by the respondents herein. During the course of trial, the respondents filed an application dated 13.3.08 and stated that the trial is in progress, and five witnesses have been examined. The accused also stated several reasons due to which according to them, punishment below the minimum prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was required to be imposed in their case. It appears that the State opposed this application. No order was passed on the said application of the accused. Once again on 3.4.08, they moved a fresh pursis and stated that the offences are of technical nature and the case is pending since 12 years resulting into great mental agony to them. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »