Gujarat Court March 2011 Judgments
Rekhaben Mansukhbhai Tuvar . Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I 245/2010 with Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegations against the applicant are to the extent that the applicant has identified the complainant and his wife before a notary for the execution of power of attorney. It is further submitted that the above identification was made by the applicant while performing her duty as an advocate and she has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicant has roots in the society, will not flee from justice and will cooperate with the investigation as and when called for. It is further submitted that in view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.3. Heard Learned APP for the respondent State.4. Having heard l...
Tag this Judgment!Alibhai Hussainbhai Kureshi, and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at C.R.No.I-29 of 2009 with DCB police station, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that co-accused are enlarged on bail and now the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. He, therefore, submits that this application for bail may kindly be considered.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the role attributed to the applicants and co-accused are enlarged on bail and now charge sheet is filed, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicants on bail.5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Neesa Leisure Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs:"[17] The petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased :-[A] to quash and set aside the warrant of authorization issued under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the subsequent action of search and seizure taken by the respondent authorities and to return all the seized material back to the petitioners;[B] to direct the respondents and the Income Tax authorities to restrict their action to the legitimate purview of powers available to them under the provisions of I.T. Act and for the legitimate purposes of the I.T. Act and to restrain them from carrying out any roving or fishing inquiry and further to quash and set aside notices issued under section 133(6) by the respondents to various banks, financial institutions and others;[C] to restrain the Income Tax authorities from issuing the...
Tag this Judgment!Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd Vs Director of Income Tax (Cib)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9^th September, 2010 passed by the Director of Income Tax (CIB), Ahmedabad under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), imposing penalty of Rs.77,300/- (Rs.100/- for each day of default for delay of 773 days) in filing annual information return under the Act.2. The facts as appearing in the petition are that the petitioner is engaged in banking business as a cooperative bank at Patan. In relation to financial year 2007-08, the petitioner received a notice dated 15.3.2010 from the Director of Income Tax (CIB), (the respondent herein) under section 271FA of the Act, stating that the petitioner had, without any cause, failed to furnish annual information return (AIR) as required under sub-section (1) of section 285BA of the Act within the prescribed time limit and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty under section 271FA of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Majabutsinh C Gohil Vs State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. The challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by respondent No.2 Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering. It is, interalia, prayed that the decision of the GPSC rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he has not scored 75 percentile in the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE), be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared as eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Class-II, in the Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics in the State of Gujarat.2. The relevant factual background is that the GPSC published Advertisement No.186 dated 16.02.2010, calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the posts of Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges a...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanbhai Nanjibhai Kantaria Vs State of Gujarat;
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
ORAL 1. The appellant, at the relevant time, in the year 1993-94, was posted as Circle Inspector in the office of Taluka Panchayat, Khambhalia. He was put on trial for the commission of the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred 'the Act'). The learned Special Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Case No.18 of 1993 passed judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7^th June, 1997, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded sentence to the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, i/d, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was also ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u...
Tag this Judgment!Anopji Bhuraji Thakore Vs State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, Deesa on 06.08.2003 in Sessions Case No.117 of 2002, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of c, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ('the B.P. Act' for short) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and imposing a fine of Rs.2000/- and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and imposing fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the B.P. Act. The said sentences were to run concurrently.2. The short facts, which would be sufficient for dealing with the present appeal, are that at any time between 14 hrs. on 10.11.2001 and 8:00 a.m. on 11.11.2001 the appellant-accused assaulted deceased-Anopji Rajaji Thakore (hereinafter referred to as "the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Hudhanbhai Laxmanbhai WaghelA.Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with First Information Report registered as II-C.R. No.186/2010 with Sayajiganj Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.2. It is submitted that in view of the decision in the case of E. Michael Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau reported in (2008) 5 SCC 161 whereby the Supreme Court considered certain criterion about determination of small or commercial quantities in relation to the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic substances in a mixture when one or more neutral substances and relevance of weight of offending drug in the mixture. It is held that as per the Central Government notification, the quantity is to be considered when punishment is to be passed on content of the offending drug in the mixture and not on the weight of the mixture as such.In view of the above and the FSL Report, the applicant d...
Tag this Judgment!Kusumben Wd/O Nileshbhai and ors Vs. Sukhvindarsingh Jagjitsingh and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. Rule. Mr. Thomas learned advocate for Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 3. The presence of other parties is not required at this stage.2. This application has been preferred seeking modification of the earlier order passed by this court in the interim application, whereby, withdrawal was permitted by furnishing solvent security and in the present application, the applicant prayed that the withdrawal be permitted without furnishing solvent security.3. This Court, in earlier order, has permitted disbursement of 50% of the amount, but such disbursement was to be effected on furnishing solvent security and the remaining 50% was ordered to be invested.4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for both the sides on the aspects of modification and withdrawal.5. The learned counsel have no objection if similar order is passed by this Court as was passed in Civil Application No. 12809/10 and allied matters on 27.10.2010.6. It app...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy General Manager. Vs. Patel Nathiben Bhikhabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Both these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.164 of 2002 dated 23^rd August 2006, whereby, the references were partly allowed and the appellant-ONGC was held liable to pay Rs.5-20 ps. per sq.mtr. as annual rent to the original claimants along with interest as enumerated in the award till the entire amount is realised.3. The facts in brief of the case are that the Land Acquisition Officer made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands belonging to the respondents, original claimants. After following due procedure, the lands came to be acquired. Thereafter, awards came to be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount of compensation.4. However, being dissatisfied with the awards, the original claimed raised disputes by way of referen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »