Gujarat Court March 2011 Judgments
AshvIn Chaturbhai. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2011
1. RULE.2. Mr. R.C.Kodekar, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. By filing instant application, the applicant convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 6.03.2009 rendered in Special Atrocity Case No.22 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, has prayed to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days to enable him to construct his house.5. Having considered the submissions advanced by Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and a perusal of the averments made in the application so also the jail remark sheet forwarded by the jail authority alongwith the application, since the applicant convict has undergone total period of 2 years, 10...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra @ Devji Meghajibhai DevdA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the charge sheet is filed which is a successive bail application after Criminal Misc. Application No. 7972 of 2010.2. The applicant-accused is charged with having committed offences under sections 420, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 and 34 of IPC for which FIR, being C.R. No. I-407/2009, has been registered with Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar.3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. P.M. Thakkar appearing with learned advocate Ms. Sandhya Natani for the applicant has referred to the papers and submitted that though on earlier occasion the applicant was not released on bail, he has remained in jail without any progress of the trial . He submitted that, therefore, considering the nature of offence and the fact that other co-accused have been released as per the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8618 of 2010 as well as Criminal Misc. Appl...
Tag this Judgment!Ravjibhai Panchabhai Gohil and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. The above mentioned Appeal as well as the Revision application arising out of the same Judgment and order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 1995 and, therefore, the same are decided by this common Judgment.2. The appellant (original accused Nos.6 & 9) have filed Criminal Appeal No.406 of 1998, under Section 374 of Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.4.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 1995, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the appellants - (ori. Accused No.6 & 9) guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P. Code and awarded sentence to them to suffer RI for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each i/d to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. However, the learned Judge has acquitted the appellants accused from the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 of I...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Atmaram VaniawalA. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 30/1/1989 rendered by the Ld. District Judge, Surat, in Land Reference Case Nos. 138, 139 and 140 of 1986, whereby the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs.500/- per sq. mtr., regarding the open land and so far as structure and construction on the acquired land is concerned, the Reference Court awarded Rs.35,000/- in Land Reference Case No. 138/1986, Rs.23,000/- in Land Reference Case No. 139/1986 and Rs.25,000/- in Land Reference Case No. 140/1986 respectively. The statutory increases as contemplated under section 23 [2] of the Land Acquisition Act [for short 'the Act'] regarding 30% solatium was granted and the interest as provided under section 28 of the Act was also granted. The Reference Court further directed that the amount already paid by the acquiring body shall be deducted.2. Certain immovable properties consisting of lands and superstructures situated in the area Soni Faliya, Pani N...
Tag this Judgment!Jayant Shantilal Sanghvi and ors. Vs. Vadodara Municipal Corporation a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Since common issue is involved in both these petitions, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application No.10105 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner, namely, Star Infrastructure requesting this Court to allow the petitioner to rescind and repudiate its original contract with the Corporation concerning the sale to it of Final Plot Nos.98 & 162 by holding that the Corporation has unilaterally altered the original terms of the auction sale vide order dated 23.03.2007, and that has resulted in a material variation of the original auction terms. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the Corporation to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of a sum of Rs.10 Lacs given by the petitioner on 07.02.2007 to the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has further prayed for the direction commanding the Corporation not to forfeit the EMD of a sum of Rs.10 Lacs deposited by the petitioner with the respondent Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller. Vs. Ravikumar Bhalabhai Parmar.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. HC Rawal on behalf of petitioner Corporation.2. The petitioner Corporation has challenged award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in complaint IT no. 4/2006 in reference IT no. 123/2003 dated 23/7/2010.3. Learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for petitioner Corporation raised contention that respondent workman was casual workman and his appointment was not made under Statutory Rules and Regulation of Corporation. Therefore, he can not consider to be a workman covered by definition of workman under section 2(S) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent workman was given work of arranging tickets bundles on temporary basis as casual workman. But work started decreasing and was being done by modern techniques. So work given to respondent workman was stopped and wages for days worked by respondent were paid to respondent. Therefore, he submitted that industrial Tribunal has committed gross error in coming to conclusion that petitioner Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Himanshu Traders (Deleted) and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. RULE. Mr. Gaurang H. Bhatt, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue waives service of Rule.2. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal on 27.7.2007 in Excise Rectification of Mistake Application No.31 to 87 of 2006 in Excise Appeal No.4453 to 4459 of 1993.3. This Court has issued notice on 9.2.2010 for final disposal of the petition.4. Heard Mr. D.V.Parikh, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Gaurang H. Bhatt, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue.5. The short issue involved in this petition is that despite the order passed by this Court on 8.8.2006 in Special Civil Application Nos. 8003 of 2006 to 8009 of 2006, permitting the petitioners to withdraw their petitions with a liberty to file Misc. Applications before the Tribunal and to decide the said Misc. Applications in accordance with law, the Tribunal has dispo...
Tag this Judgment!Harish H. Dave. Vs. Chief Administrative Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.8.2010 in Civil Application for amendment No.8945 of 2010 has been dismissed.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal, at the admission stage.3. Special Civil Application No.6416 of 1994 and Civil Application No.6416 of 1994 and Civil Application No.3125 of 2008 were disposed by a common order dated 4.4.2008. The order is extracted as under:"1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.2) Mr.P.H.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant-original petitioner, relying on the letter dated 8.2.2007 addressed by Zonal Officer and Superintending Engineer of opponent-Department and submits that in case if the petition is withdrawn, there may be some delay in granting deemed date, as prayed for.3) Mr.Deepak Patel, learned counsel for the opponents Nos.2 and 3 submits that if the main Special Civil Application is withdrawn by th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhima Sidi ModhA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, Mr.K.L.Pandya, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the State.2. The accused-applicant has prayed for regular bail in connection with offences registered with Kutiyana Police Station, Porbandar vide C.R.No.I-46 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.3. I have heard learned senior counsel, Mr.P.M.Thakkar for the accused-applicant and learned APP, Mr.K.L.Pandya, for the State.4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that all offences are magistrate triable offences. Investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been filed. Counsel has further submitted that accused is in custody since 8^th December, 2010. My attention has been drawn to page 14 of the compilation, which is a part of the FIR. Page 14 is the list of the persons who have not been paid their dues. The total amount comes to around Rs.1,43,838/-. Learned counsel would further submit that he is a local resident o...
Tag this Judgment!Vrajeshkumar Hiralal Parikh. Vs. Navdurga Indane.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.F.Adhvaryu for applicant original respondent and learned advocate Mr.T.J.Modi for respondent original petitioner.2. Present application is preferred with a prayer to direct the original petitioner to reinstate the workman to his original post along with 50% back wages.3. Initially, in SCA No.8002 of 2010, on 14.7.2010, this Court has passed following order :"The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent workman will be reinstated in service before the next date of hearing. Thus, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Notice only for the purpose of back wages, returnable on 09.08.2010.As the learned counsel for the petitioner has assured that the respondent workman will be reinstated with continuity in service, the impugned award qua back wages is stayed."3.1 Thereafter, on 23.8.2010, this Court has passed following order :"Though served, nobody has appeared. Hence, Rule. Ad-interim-relief granted earli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »