Gujarat Court May 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.
Dilipkumar Husmukhlal Mistri and 1 Vs. State of Gujarat and 1
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Hardik A Dave for the petitioners, learned APP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.Y.M.Thakkar for the respondent No.2.2. Rule. Learned APP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.Y.M.Thakkar for the respondent No.2 waive service of notice of rule.3. The learned advocates for the respective parties have jointly submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and copy of the terms of settlement produced by the learned advocate for the petitioners is ordered to be taken on record. It is further submitted that both the husband and the wife have decided to take divorce and for which, they will approach the competent court for obtaining consent decree. It is also submitted that an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Lakhs only) is paid by the husband towards the permanent alimony of the wife. In view of the above, it is submitted that the complaint may be quashed.4. It is clear that the partie...
Bharatbhai Chilabhai Limbachiya Vs.State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. The present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22^nd April, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, in Special Case No.229 of 1993, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one-and-half-years, and also imposed fine of Rs.1,600/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i), (ii), (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and also imposed fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine; se...
Surat Municipal Corporation Vs. Aminesh Chandravadan Bodiwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. We have heard the learned counsel Mr Rutul Desai holding brief of Mr P G Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr A K Clerk, learned counsel for the respondent. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.423 of 2001, the appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal.2. The brief facts of the present appeal are that the appellant is Surat Municipal Corporation duly constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. As per Resolution No.46 dated 11.5.1992, the respondent was appointed as a trainee and was serving as Primary Health Worker (Male) from 23.3.1994. It was specifically mentioned in the said Resolution that the training period of the respondent would be of one year and within one year if the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory, then the same may b...
Chandrasinh Ishwarbava Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. The appellant was put on trial for the commission of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred 'the Act'). The learned Additional Special Judge, Vadodara, in Special Case No.26 of 1993 passed judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2000, whereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded sentence to the appellant to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to further undergo S.I. for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act, the appellant was ordered to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, i/d, to further undergo S.I. for 1 year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution, at the relevant time, the appellant accused was serving as Head Constable at Sankheda Police Station and was investigating officer in one c...
Akbar Hanif Khodiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, Mr Kodekar, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of State.2. This is an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for regular bail in connection with offence registered with Kamrej Police Station, Dist. Surat vide C.R.No.I-78 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 471, 188, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.3. Heard learned advocate Ms Kruti M Shah for the accused-applicant and Mr Kodekar, learned APP for the State. Perused the FIR. The parties does not press for a reasoned order.4. This appears to be a prima-facie case of Hawala transactions. The accused-applicant was in company of other co-accused during the search of their car, resulting in recovery of Rs.50 lakhs.5. Considering the role ascribed to the accused-applicant and the nature of allegations levelled against the accused-applicant in the FIR, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant taking into conside...
Rajubhai Madhabhai Vegda and 1 Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. The present application has been filed by the applicants-accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail, which is a successive bail application after filing of the Criminal Misc. Application No.11991/2010 as well as Criminal Misc. Application No.15637/2010.2. The applicantsaccused are charged with having committed offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 427, 120(B), 34, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, for which, FIR being I-C.R.No.89/2010 has been lodged at Jetpur City Police Station, District : Rajkot (Rural).3. Learned counsel, Mr.Chhaya for the applicants at the outset does not press this application qua applicant-accused no.1 viz., Rajubhai Madhabhai Vegda. Therefore, the present application is confined to applicant no.2 viz., Manishbhai Madhabhai Vegda. Learned counsel, Mr.Chhaya submitted that considering the role attributed and the weapon with which the applicant no.2 is said ...
ibrahim Ayub Siddat Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, Mr Kodekar, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of State.2. This is an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for regular bail in connection with offence registered with Kamrej Police Station, Dist. Surat vide C.R.No.I-78 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 471, 188, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.3. Heard learned advocate Ms Kruti M Shah for the accused-applicant and Mr Kodekar, learned APP for the State. Perused the FIR. The parties do not press for a reasoned order.4. This appears to be a prima-facie case of Hawala transactions. The accused-applicant was in company of other co-accused during the search of their car, resulting in recovery of Rs.50 lakhs.5. Considering the role ascribed to the accused-applicant and the nature of allegations levelled against the accused-applicant in the FIR, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant taking into considera...
Rfcl Limited Vs. State of Gujarat and 2
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. The brief facts are that the respondent no.2 Central Medical Store Organisation is the central medical procurement agency of the State Government (for short the CMSO) and carries on the business of procuring medical equipments and supplies for the State Government, the respondent no.1. Tender was invited by CMSO for supply of 129, subsequently increased to 134, Blood Cell Counter (3 Part 18 Parameter) Auto Hematological Analyser (for short the AHA) from reputed manufactures/direct importers or subsidiary of original/foreign manufactures. The AHA machines use reagents for start up, shut down and to conduct analyses of blood samples. The AHA machines are reagent specific and each manufacturer has its own specification/chemical composition of the reagents to be used with its machine. The technical and commercial bids were to be submitted by 4.10.2010.2. The commercial bid required the bidders to quote their price for the AHA machines, cost of comprehensive maintenance contract (for sho...
The Commandent/(Co) and 1 Vs. Panchal Mahendrabhai Maganbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
This Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 21^st April 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition Special Civil Application No.229/1998.By the said order, the learned Single Judge set-aside the action of the appellants original respondents of recovering a sum of Rs.507=00 from the salary of the respondent original petitioner.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the respondent was recruited in 122 BN in CRPF as a Constable (Fitter). While posted at Nagpur, he was ordered to accompany the convoy of two vehicles to attend the Jammu Election and on the way to Jammu, at Fagwada city in Punjab, the respondent met with an accident and he received serious injuries on his left portion of the body (chest and leg). He was given treatment at Fagwada Government Hospital. It is stated that the respondent had proceeded on leave and as there was no leave due in the account of the respondent, Rs.507=00 per month was deducted ...
Vaghela Ushaben Dahyabhai Vs.State of Gujarat Through Director of Muni ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, and Mr.Deepak P.Sanchela, learned advocate waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:"(A) Admit and allow this Special Civil Application. (B) Allow this Special Civil Application and be pleased to hold action of respondent authority in not regularizing services of petitioners as bad, illegal and arbitrary and further be pleased to direct respondent authority to consider case of petitioner for selection on regular post and regularize service of petitioner and direct them to give all consequential benefits to petitioner. (C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition be p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »