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.
Amit Ashwinbhai Raja Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent - State.2. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I-346 of 2010 with "A" Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 464 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a dentist and residing at Mumbai was already granted anticipatory bail on 27.1.2011 by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.888 of 2011 and time limit and duration of the anticipatory bail expired and, therefore, considering the law laid down in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.4. Heard Learned APP for the respondent State.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perus...
imran 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 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...
Bhavnaben D/O Arvindbhai Vashrambhai Solanki (Dalit) - Minor Vs. State ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Rule. The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Ms.C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and Mr.M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate, for respondent No.2-original accused No.2.2. By way of present application, the applicant- original complainant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14^th February 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, 5^th Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Jetpur, whereby the trial Court has granted regular bail to the respondent No.2-accused as well as directing the Investigating Agency to take the respondent-accused in custody immediately.3. The respondent No.2-accused along with other co-accused was arrested in connection with C.R. No.I-177 of 2010 registered with Jetpur City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 363, 366, 342, 506(1) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The respondent no.2 is the original accused No.2.4. It is the case of the prosecution in brie...
Shaikh Shakurninsa a Rehman and 2 Vs.Yakubsha Gulabsha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. By way of present Revision Application, the applicants have inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 23^rd July 1998 passed by the lower Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No.19 of 1994, whereby the Appellate Bench has set aside the judgment and decree dated 18^th October 1993 passed by the trial Court in H.R.P. Suit No.3524 of 1986.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicants-landlords filed the suit stating that they are owners of the suit property which was let out to the respondent-tenant for residential purpose. It is the case of the applicant-landlords before the trial Court that the respondent-tenant paid rent upto 30^th November 1984 and he is in arrears of rent from 01^st December 1984. The applicants also claimed decree of eviction from the respondent-original defendant stating that the suit premises is required by them for their personal use and occupation reasonably and bona fide. Further, it ...
Divisional Controller Vs. Zala Raisingh Babbabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik C. Rawal appearing on behalf of petitioner - Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Divisional Office, Nadiad ('petitioner Corporation' for short).2. In this group of petitions, petitioner has challenged order passed by Controlling Authority, Nadiad in Gratuity Application filed by respondent workman and same has been decided in favour of respondent workman by Controlling Authority with a direction to petitioner Corporation to pay remaining amount of gratuity with interest of delayed payment of gratuity to respondent workman. Being aggrieved by said order passed by Controlling Authority, petitioner Corporation has challenged order passed by Controlling Authority, Nadiad before Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority has also dismissed Appeal filed by petitioner Corporation. Therefore, both orders passed by Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority are under challenge in present group of petitions.3. Learned a...
Rakesh Prahladram Joshi and 2 Vs.State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") is filed by the applicants for seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest for non-bailable offence punishable under Sections 395, 365, 506, 294 (KH) of Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act.2. As per the case of the complainant who is studying and also a friend of accused No.1, on 17.3.2011 called accused No.1 and Rakesh to settle the dispute amicably at Havmor Restaurant, Nr. Vastrapur Lake, Ahmedabad and accused No.1 was present along with two other unknown persons in his car and complainant was forcibly asked to sit in the car and the said car was driven and the complainant was beaten by all of them and golden chain and bracelet were snatched away and thereafter the complainant was kicked and beaten and dropped at a distant place.2.1. In the above backdrop of the allegations the applicants preferred anticipatory bail application before learned Sessions...
Divisional Controller Vs. Jethabhai Govabhai Vankar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.C.Raval for petitioner GSRT Corporation.2. In this group of petitions, prayer is made by petitioner Corporation in Para.8(B) to quash and set aside the order passed by Controlling Authority, Mehsana under Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 and pending admission, stay may be granted against order passed by Controlling Authority.3. Therefore, in this group of petitions, only order passed by Controlling Authority is under challenge.4. The petitioner Corporation has not filed appeal before appellate authority under provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972. Present order which has been passed by Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972. Relevant Section-7(4)(a) to (e) of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 is quoted as under :(4) (a) If there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the perso...
Ranchhodbhai Bavabhai Thakore Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. The appellant original accused No.1 has preferred this appeal under sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special Case No. 33 of 1998, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant accused No.1 for the offence under section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 18 (eighteen) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for further three months. Vide the said Judgment, the learned Special Judge has acquitted original accused No.2 from the offences charged against him.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:That the accused No.1 (appellant herein) was discharging his duties as Talati-cum-Mantri in Group Gram Panchayat of village Didarda, Taluka Tharad and the accused No.2 was working as Chowkidar....
Bhargav Ramanbhai Rohit Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Learned APP, Mr Shah, 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 Modasa Police Station, vide C.R.No.I-22 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 292, 294, 384, 354, 506(2) read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, 2000.3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr Nanavati for the accused-applicant and Mr Shah, learned APP for the State. Perused the FIR. The parties do not press for a reasoned order.4. 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 consideration the following aspects :-(1) The offences are magistrate triable offences except Section 328, which I am informed that I.O. has filed a report for deletion of th...
Rameshbhai Muljibhai Patel and 1 Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2011
1.Rule. Mr R.C.Kodekar, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the State.This Application has been preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for anticipatory bail, in connection with CR I-51/2011 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Nanavati appearing with Mr.Kapadia for the applicant-accused, learned APP Mr.Kodekar appearing for the State and Mr.Majmudar appearing for the original complainant.3. Prima facie, it appears that the accused-applicants are purchasers of the property. Accepting the case of the prosecution that the original owners could not have executed sale-deed in favour of the present applicants because the property had already been sold in favour of the first informant, still the accused-applicants as purchasers of the property, prima facie, cannot be held responsibl...