Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr.J.K. Shah waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner, through jail, has moved the present application seeking early date of hearing of his case pending before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. 3. Having regard to the application of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is the under trial prisoner in connection with C.R.No.I-106 of 2006 registered with Bapunagar police station for the offence under Sections 397, 307, 120B and 332 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) of the Arms Act. It further transpires that the case of the petitioner has already been committed to the City Civil and Sessions Court recently and is pending for trial. The present application has been moved by the petitioner for early hearing of the case on the ground that he is in jail since October, 2008 and there is nobody to look after his family members. It is true that the petitioner is in jail since October, 2008, however, it app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr P.K. Jani, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Counsel assisted by Mr Kalpesh M Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P K Jani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. The present Criminal Misc.Application has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "the Code") for quashing of FIR registered as C.R. No.I-3 of 2006 with Lunawada police station, District Panchmahals as well as for quashing of summons dated 9.5.2011 issued by the In Charge, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lunawada Region, Lunawada. The main relief sought for in para 15 (a) to 15 (d) reads as under: "15(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the offence registered as CR No.I-3 of 2006 with Lunawada police Station, Panchmahals, and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR in the interest of justice. (b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to order th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with First Information Report registered as I-C.R. No.65/2009 with Paliyad Police Station, Dist. Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 477(A) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that by various orders passed earlier, the co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench and role of the applicant is that of negligence and at the most it may amount to dereliction of duty. It is further submitted that considering the above fact and that the Additional TDO and Sarpanchs of different villages have already been enlarged on bail, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.3. Heard learned APP Mr. LB Dabhi for the respondent-State.4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta with Mr. H.S. Tolia, learned Advocates for the Appellants (Original Defendants) and Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Maulik R. Shah for Nanavati Associates for Respondent (Original Plaintiff). 2. Upon the consensus arrived at between the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall not be appropriate to interfere at this stage as any observation made in this order on merits may prejudice the case of the either side. 3. In view of the matter and as per the consensus arrived at between the parties, in the interest of justice, the following order is passed : [i] The present Appellants (Original Defendants) shall file reply to temporary injunction application (Exh.5) on or before 24.05.2011 and shall give copy to the other side along with list of documents, if relied upon. [ii] A copy of the same shall be handed over to learned Advocate appearing for the original plaintiff before the Trial Court. [iii]Rejoinder, if any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Learned APP Mr.Dabhi waives service of rule for and on behalf of the State. 2. This Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for regular bail, in connection with I-CR No.119/2011 registered with Palanpur Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Abichandani for the applicant-accused and learned APP Mr.Dabhi for the State. 4. Having regard to the rival contentions of the respective counsel and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences coupled with the fact that substantially investigation is over and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail in connection with I-CR No.119/2011 registered with Palanpur Police Station, Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Regular Bail in connection with the F.I.R. C.R. No. I-65/2011, registered with the Chandkheda Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 386 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard, learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to page 16, a communication dated 4th May 2011 from the Police Inspector, Chandkheda Police Station to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar and also internal page 3 of the complaint to show that the victim girl, aged about 17 years and 07 months has run away with one Hitesh on his motorcycle. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1 is aged about 68 years and from the contents of the F.I.R. it appears that, no specific allegations are made against the present applicants. 2.1 The learned advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present application is filed by applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being CR-I No.469 OF 2010 with Amraiwadi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 452, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of State Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant accused has been arrested on 30.03.2011 and he 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 enlarged on bail. 4. Heard Learned APP for the respondent State. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, it appears that investigation is over and charge-sheet is submitted. Now, there is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This revision u/s. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.07.1997 passed by the learned appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.30 of 1990 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.12.1989 passed by the learned Small Causes Court No. 7, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 33 of 1984 was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present application are that respondents nos. 1 to 6, original plaintiffs, filed a suit being H.R.P. Suit No.33 of 1984 against respondent nos. 7, 8, 10 to 12 - original defendant nos. 3 to 7 and the applicant herein-original defendant no. 1 praying to recover the possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent of the property bearing Survey No. 4540/26/27/41/42 situated in Jamalpur Ward-1B, Ahmedabad. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. In the present petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner for award of contract for transportation of packed LPG Gas Cylinders from their bottling plant at Hariyala. The petitioner has prayed for a writ or direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for award of the contract for transportation of the packed LPG cylinders and to award such contract to the petitioner in respect of her own dealership.2. The facts leading to the present petition can be shortly stated as under:2.1 The petitioner Jyoti Sanjeev is proprietor of Jyoti Transport as well as Jay Jyoti Gas Agency, both of which are proprietary concerns. The petitioner is an authorised LPG Distributor appointed by the respondents for Ahmedabad(West) territory since 1995 and runs the agency in the name and style of Jyoti Gas Agency.2.2 Respondent No. 1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is concededly "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The appellant is the original accused. By impugned judgement and order dated 9.12.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bharuch in Special N.D.P.S. Case No. 5/2003, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(here-in-after referred to as "the NDPS Act") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed. In default of payment of fine, he had to undergo simple imprisonment of six months.2. Learned advocate Ms. Roopal Patel appearing for the appellant submitted that conviction and sentence are illegal and unlawful and that there are number of procedural and substantial defects in the investigation. She submitted in the alternative that sentence is also harsh and excessive. She submitted that if the Court is inclined to consider the question of adequacy of sentence, it would not be necessary for the appellant to press appeal on merits.2.1 Wi...
Tag this Judgment!