Gujarat Court March 2011 Judgments
Dy. General Manager. Vs. Vaghela Kishorsinh Raysinh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.132 of 2005 dated 03^rd August 2006, whereby, the reference was partly allowed and the appellant-ONGC was held liable to pay Rs.11.00 ps. per sq. meter as annual rent to the original claimants along with interest as enumerated till the entire amount is realised.2. 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, award came to be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount of compensation.3. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the original claimants raised dispute by way of reference before the Court below. The reference Court, after appreciating the documents on record, partly allowed the same by way of the impugned awa...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshbhai Parashottambhai and anr. Vs. Bhavik Mohanbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No.179 of 2007 dated 29.01.2010, whereby, the said suit preferred by the appellants, original plaintiffs, came to be rejected.2. The facts in brief as emerging from the record are as under;In respect of the land bearing Survey No.243, ad-measuring 23,067 sq. metres (27,588 sq. yards), situated in Bodakdev area of Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad and belonging to the ownership of the appellants and respondent no.9 herein, the Draft Scheme under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short, "the Town Planning Act") came to be sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification dated 04.02.1982. The Preliminary Scheme in respect of the said land was sanctioned vide Notification dated 14.08.1986. The Final Scheme was sanctioned vide Notification dated 01.01.1993 and the land was allotted Final Plot No.357 ad-measuri...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturincompany Ltd and anr. Vs. Regional Provid ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.1.1996 passed by the respondent Commissioner, Ahmedabad. The petition was admitted and impugned order was stayed by this Court.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Central Government issued a Notification dated 31.8.1994 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 6 of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act and thereby amended the earlier Notification issued by the Government of India dated 17.5.1989 and in the Schedule attached to the said Notification dated 17.5.1989, added an entry at Serial No.99 was added as under:-"99. Textiles (made wholly or in part of cotton". In view of the said Notification, the Provident Fund Department instructed the concerned officers to comply with the provisions of the said Act by making payment of contribution at the enhanced rate of 10%.3. It is also the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh Vaghela and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This application is preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with I. C.R. No. 41/2009, registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506[1] and 294[b] of Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the applicants, submitted that the applicants are nowhere involved in the alleged commission of offence as alleged in the FIR. Considering the fact that the complainant has filed detailed affidavit, wherein, no grievance is made out against the present applicants, they deserve to be granted anticipatory bail as prayed for in the application. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Annexure:C which is a letter written by the complainant to the Police Inspector, Naroda Police Station, wherein, names of the present applicants are also not mentioned. Considering the aforesaid aspect and the FIR whic...
Tag this Judgment!Lutim Pharma Pvt.Ltd.-thro and ors. Vs. Meteoric Exim Pvt.Ltd.- Thro a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The applicants have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings and the Private Criminal Complaint Case No.1304 of 2010 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad.2. On 23.12.2010, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing rule and granting ad-interim relief, passed the following order:1. Mr.Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the amount involved in the present matter is approximately Rs.1 Lac (Rupees One Lac only) and to show the bonafide event the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the said amount with the registry of this Court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners.2. Though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, RULE, returnable on 17/1/2011. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is directed to be continued till final...
Tag this Judgment!Arcoy Biorefinery Pvt.Ltd and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicants with the following main prayer :- "[B] Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint being Criminal Case No.1743 of 2010 filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act at Annexure-"A" to the application".2. This Court while issuing notice on 25.06.2010 granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 7(B) of the application.3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that thereafter, the parties have settled their dispute and entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.01.2011. This court noticed the alleged dispute about payment of outstanding dues vis-a-vis interpretion of terms of agreement. The said Memorandum of Understanding reads as under:"This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this 24^th day of January, 2011 at Ahmedabad betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Latif Bhachu SamejA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. As the present appeals are arising out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14^th June 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi-Kutch, in Criminal Case No.2191 of 1992, all the three appeals are heard and decided by the present common judgment.2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14^th June 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi-Kutch, in Criminal Case No.2191 of 1992, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant-accused was acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused was serving as Branch Post Master in Dhunai Post Office, Mandvi during the period 02^nd August 1986 to 08^th August 1992. It is the case of the prosecution that durin...
Tag this Judgment!Latif Bhachu SamejA. Vs. State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. As the present appeals are arising out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14^th June 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi-Kutch, in Criminal Case No.2191 of 1992, all the three appeals are heard and decided by the present common judgment.2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14^th June 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi-Kutch, in Criminal Case No.2191 of 1992, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant-accused was acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused was serving as Branch Post Master in Dhunai Post Office, Mandvi during the period 02^nd August 1986 to 08^th August 1992. It is the case of the prosecution that durin...
Tag this Judgment!Basantsingh Diwansingh Bhouriyal and ors. Vs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The applicants have filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the first information report No.I-128 of 2010 dated 21.6.2010 registered at Chandkheda Police Station, District: Gandhinagar, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 495, 294B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicants has raised three-fold contentions:[i] The first information report does not disclose any of the ingredients of the offences alleged and the allegations made therein are vague and unspecific and the foundation of the first information report is on false, frivolous and concocted version and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.[ii] This Court has no jurisdiction since the marriage did take place at Haldwani Temple, Nanital, Uttrakhand and the couple stayed at Katar [Gulf country], New Delhi and Nanital. In support of the above argument, learned counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy General Mangarer. Vs. Vaghela Babuji Chhaguji.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This group of appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.201 of 2002 dated 21^st August 2006, whereby, the references were partly allowed and the appellant-ONGC was held liable to pay Rs.8.35 ps. per sq. metre 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
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »