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.
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.1.2. By way of present application, the applicant- original complainant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15^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.1.4. It is the case of the prosecution in brie...
Prafulbhai Shanabhai Bhavsar 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.2. This Application has been preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for anticipatory bail, in connection with M.Case No.4/2010 registered with Jetpur-Pavi Police Station, Vadodara (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Heard learned counsel Ms.Shah appearing for the applicant-accused and learned APP Mr.Kodekar for the State.4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant-accused, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant accused, taking into consideration the following aspects:-(a) The alleged offence is shown to have been committed sometime around 22^nd February 1976. The applicant-accused is aged about 71 years and at the relevant time he was serving as Talati-cum...
Destel Marine Limited Vs. M V Star 7
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. Plaintiff is a Company registered in Liberia engaged in the business of supply of bunkers. The defendant-vessel is a Tanzania flagged vessel presently in port and harbour Alang. The plaintiff seeks security from the defendant for a sum of USD 1 million towards security for arbitration in New York arising out of unpaid supply of fuel and bunkers as mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the plaint.2. It is not in dispute that the claim made in the present suit is about supply of necessaries and no one disputes that it is not 'maritime claim' and the defendant also accepts the same.3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the defendant has raised preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable in view of the claim made only for security pending arbitration and no claim is preferred for any money decree and reliance is placed on the judgment dated 17^th February 2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in O.J. Appeal No.6 of 2011 confirming the decision dated 24.1.2011 of this...
Hanif @ Khatko Suleman Varalia and 1 Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2011
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 Vagdod Police Station, vide C.R.No.I- 86 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 333, 332, 427 of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Damages to Public Properties Act.3. Heard learned advocate Mr Gondalia for the applicant-accused and Mr Kodekar, learned APP for the State. Perused the FIR and papers of the chargesheet.4. Learned APP Mr Kodekar resisted the present application and submitted that some of the accused are alleged to have caused injuries to the police. One police official has lost his eye. Therefore, the application may not be entertained.5. Prima-facie it appears that the case of the prosecution is that a mob of about 3000 to 4000 people got engaged in rioting and stone pelting. It is also alleged that there was some ...
Rakeshbhai Arvindbhai Bariya Vs. State of Gujarat and 2
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3. 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. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Director General of Police (respondent No.2), whereby, the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by District Superintendent of Police (respondent No.3), terminating the services of the petitioner as Armed Police Constable has been confirmed.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Armed Police Constable on contractual basis and on fixed salary of Rs.2,500/-, by order dated 03.01.2007. After a period of about two and half years of joining service, the petitioner was required to fill up an Attestation Form provide...
Maheshbhai Kallubhai Harijan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. Leave to amend.2. Rule. Learned APP, Mr Kodekar, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of State.3. This is an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for regular bail in connection with offence registered with Sagbara Police Station, vide C.R.No.II-7 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(A)(B) and 27 of the Arms and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.4. Heard learned advocate Mr Khandheria for the applicant-accused and Mr Kodekar, learned APP for the State.5. Prima-facie, it appears that the accused-applicant was found to be in possession of country-made pistol. It is evident from the FIR that there were no cartridges. Since he had no licence, his possession was found to be unlawful constituting an offence under the Arms Act. It also appears that only ground which weighed with the learned trial Court in rejecting the application is the fact that he hails from UP and is not a local resident. However, considering the nature of...
Salmankhan Misrikhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2011
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 at Vidyanagar Police Station, vide C.R.No.I-14 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324 and 504 of IPC coupled with Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.3. Heard learned advocate Mr Barot for the applicant-accused and Mr Kodekar, learned APP for the State. Perused the FIR and papers of the chargesheet.4. Learned advocate Mr Barot would submit that the chargesheet is filed and the applicant herein has been attributed of having inflicted one blow with an iron pipe on the head of the complainant and one another witness named Mahesh Solanki.5. Considering the role ascribed to the applicant-accused, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant-accused in the FIR and the papers of cha...
Chhayanben Maheshbhai Vasava and 3 Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. Heard Mr.Nimavat, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent-State.2. The applicants have taken out present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the offences registered with Dediapada Police Station, District Narmada bearing CR No.I-12 of 2011 punishable under Sections 436, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(B) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. Mr.Nimavat, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that since the applicants being the members of the Panchayat have taken action against the complainant to remove their illegal encroachment on gauchar land, they have involved in the case on incorrect allegation. He submitted that the applicants are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed. Mr.Nimavat, learned advocate for the applicants has also stated that the applicants will be available whenever their presence is required. He requests that the applicants, ...
Sandeep J Kapadia and 1 Vs State of Gujarat and 1
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. Leave to amend. Rule. Mr.L.R.Poojari, Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ravish D. Bhatt, learned advocate waive service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.2. The present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of private complaint filed by respondent no.2 before learned JMFC, Savli which is registered as M.Case No.10 of 2010 before Bhadarva Police Station, District Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 506(2) and 120B of Indian Penal Code.3. It is jointly submitted by the learned Advocates for the parties that the dispute is settled between the parties and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Settlement terms is also placed on record. Affidavit of complainant to this effect is produced which is ordered to be taken on record. Complainant is present before the Court and he has also submitted that the matter is settled between the parties; he and ot...
Mr. A.P. Arya Vs the State of Jharkhand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 18.7.2008, passed by Sri Dhanjaya Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur by which a prima facie case was found against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 304, 420, 269, 270, 201, 204, 323, 504, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code after inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C/I Case No.771 of 2007. Petitioners have further requested for quashment of their entire criminal proceedings arising out of the said complaint case.2. Prosecution story in short was that the complainant-opposite party No.2 herein Sri Vimal Kumar Panday, an Advocate had admitted his wife Smt. Neelam Panday in the TELCO Hospital, Jamshedpur on 12.10.2006 as she was suffering from high fever and bodyache. On 14.10.2006 when temperature of Smt. Neelam Panday did not reduce, on being enquired by the complainant, the accu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »