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.
Navghanbhai Shivabhai Thakor Vs Navghanbhai Shivabhai Thakor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. This is an application under Section 439 of Code praying for regular bail in connection with offence registered with Zinzuvada Police Station vide C.R.No.I.12 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 325, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and U/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.2. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.B.Patel for the applicant and learned APP, Mr.J.K.Shah, for the State.3. Following aspects are taken into consideration. (A) All offences are triable by Magistrate. (B) The injured is already discharged from Hospital. He is out of danger. Maximum punishment which can be imposed by learned Magistrate, if at all the offences are said to have been proved, would be upto 3 years.4. Having regard to the nature of accusation and other relevant aspects, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant. Under the circumstances, accused-applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with offence registered with Zi...
Kolli Madhav Sairam Reddy. Vs Union of India and 2
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. The application on hand has been titled and described by the applicant as "application for review of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2010."2. The applicant is the original petitioner and appellant and present opponents are original respondents.3. The applicant is one of the students of opponent No.2 institute in present application.4. The respondent No.2-institute had, on the charge that the petitioner was involved in act of ragging, imposed certain penalty on the petitioner and other five students, vide circular/order dtd.1.2.20105. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant herein had preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3669 of 2010 which was rejected by learned single Judge vide order dated 25^th March, 2010. Against the said order rejecting the petition, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.528 of 2010 which was decided by judgment and order dated 29^th October, 2010. As the title of the application suggests, the applicant seeks review of...
Khaira, District Jamui Vs the State of Bihar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1.02/ 10.01.2011 Heard. This is a petition for anticipatory bail for offence under Sections 147, 447, 341, 323, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.2.The allegation in the FIR is omnibus that all the nine accused persons assaulted, the injury report suggests that all the injury are simple and the petitioner was on police bail. However, the cognizance has been taken under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code after submission of the charge-sheet. Though the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 147, 447, 341, 323, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the injuries are simple in nature and superficial. Hence, having regard to the fact and circumstance, the petitioner is released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below 4.within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Jamui in connec...
Shah Kaminiben Mahendrabhai Vs. Jyotshanaben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. The present Civil Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant-original defendant under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for the prayer that the Judgment & Order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.9 of 2009 passed by the Principal District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) (Appellate Court) dated 19^th April, 2010 confirming the Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.622 of 1988 by the Additional Civil Judge, Amedabad (Rural), Mirzapur (lower Court) dated 24^th December, 2008 may be quashed and set said on the ground stated in the memo of Revision Application.2. It is contended inter alia that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record like election card as well as other documentary evidence, which suggest the possession and occupation of the suit premises and has erroneously given finding, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that it would make it clear that the applicant is residing sinc...
M/S. L.K.Trust Vs Edc Ltd. and ors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. Leave is granted in each Special Leave Petition.2. The appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10334 of 2008 is directed against order dated April 07, 2008 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Misc. Civil Application No. 165 of 2008 which was filed in Writ Petition No. 601 of 2006 by which it is clarified that the order of status quo passed by the High Court vide order dated December 18, 2006 shall not come in the way of EDC Ltd., i.e., the respondent no. 1 Company herein and the State Bank of India, i.e., the respondent No. 2 herein in considering the proposal of the respondent no. 3 Company who is mortgagor and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 601 of 2006. The appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 10335 of 2008 is directed against order dated April 9, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 601 of 2006 by which the resolution passed by the respondent no. 1 EDC Ltd. on April 8, 2008 had resolved to accept the proposa...
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Vs Chemstar Organics (i) Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. As both these appeals arise out of the same common judgment of the learned Single Judge and common question of law is involved, both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Letters Patent Appeal No.1243 of 2010 has been preferred by the appellant-original first respondent-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" for short) and Letters Patent Appeal No.1513 of 2010 has been filed by the original second respondent- Effluent Channel Project Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ECP" for short) against the judgment dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11144 of 2001. In the said case, the first respondent-original petitioner -Chemstar Organics(I) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Company" for short) sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus and/or ...
Babarbhai Dahyabhai Vankar and 1 Vs Prabhakar Parshotambhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. The present Civil Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant-original defendant for the prayer that the Judgment & Order passed in Civil Appeal No.48 of 1990 by the 3^rd Extra Assistant Judge, Nadiad dated 24.01.1997 confirming the Judgment & Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.197 of 1981 by the Civil Judge (JD), Borsad dated 31.12.1985 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the memo of Revision Application inter alia that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the contentions raised or advanced on behalf of the applicant that the case was required to be referred to the Tenancy Court. It is also contended that in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Act, 1948, issue raised could not have been decided by the Civil Court as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, it has been contended that both the Courts below have committed a grave error in deciding the Issue no.5, which had no jurisdiction. It is also contended that...
Shah Kaminiben Mahendrabhai. Vs Jyotshanaben P Prajapati
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. The present Civil Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant-original defendant under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for the prayer that the Judgment & Order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.9 of 2009 passed by the Principal District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) (Appellate Court) dated 19^th April, 2010 confirming the Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.622 of 1988 by the Additional Civil Judge, Amedabad (Rural), Mirzapur (lower Court) dated 24^th December, 2008 may be quashed and set said on the ground stated in the memo of Revision Application.2. It is contended inter alia that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record like election card as well as other documentary evidence, which suggest the possession and occupation of the suit premises and has erroneously given finding, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that it would make it clear that the applicant is residing since lo...
Medical Officer Vs Dashrathsinh Gajubha Zala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak C. Raval for petitioner. He submitted that respondent was appointed as daily wager driver in Primary Health Center when there was additional work available. Respondent workman was relieved from work as work was not available. Therefore, respondent raised an industrial dispute under machinery of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to for adjudication to Labour Court, Surendranagar, registered as Reference (LCS) No. 24 of 2004. Statement of claim was filed by workman against which written statement was filed by petitioner wherein it was stated that appointment of respondent was casual in nature and respondent was not appointed through any selection procedure and respondent also not supplied his consent letter to work as and when work was available. Labour Court, Surendranagar passed award on 24^th March, 2010 and granted reinstatement. According to learned advocate Mr. Raval for petitioner, Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Surendran...
ipcl Employees Association - Through General Secretary Vs Reliance Ind ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. BA Desai with learned advocate Mr. Suthar for learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioner IPCL Employees Association through General Secretary, learned Advocate General Mr. KB Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. KD Gandhi appearing for Nanavati Association for respondent no. 1 on Caveat.2. The present petition was heard by this Court on 2/5/2011. Thereafter, matter was kept reserved for judgment. In this petition, petitioner Association has challenged award passed by Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda exh 26 in reference IT no. 95/2009 dated 7/2/2011. The Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda has accepted settlement arrived between respondent no. 1 Reliance Industries Ltd, respondent no. 2 IPCL Employees Union and respondent no. 3 Petrochemicals Employees Union vide exh 14 and found to be just, proper, fair and reasonable. Therefore, in terms of aforesaid settlement exh 14, award has been passed and disposed of reference in terms of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »