Gujarat Court June 2011 Judgments
State of Gujarat Through Secretary and anr. Vs. B.D.Trivedi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
1. We have heard Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devang Trivedi for the respondent. 2. This Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the interim orders dated 25.06.2010 and 26.02.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1209 of 2010. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed before us paragraph 26 (C) of the writ petition which reads as under :- “(C) Pending admission and hearing of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the respondents from implementing the impugned order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure-A)” 4. What is challenged in the writ petition is the order dated 27.01.2010. By the said order, the appellants have modified the earlier order of pension dated 31.05.1998 passed by appellants to the effect that the respondent would be getting pension for the post of Deputy Section Officer inst...
Tag this Judgment!Poonambhai Chimanbhai Vasava and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. Rule. Mr. Pandya, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Barod for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Pandya for the State. 3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2118 days caused in preferring criminal appeal against conviction of the applicants for the offence of murder by the Sessions Court, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.241 of 2002 dated 5.7.2005. 4. The applicants prayed for condonation of delay of an unusually long period, but following paragraphs would indicate the circumstances in which the present application has arisen. 5. The applicants along with two others came to be tried by the Sessions Court for the offence of murder and came to be convicted by the above referred judgment and order. The other two convicts preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.1729 of 2005 and 735 of 2006 which came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court. During the course of hearing and on inquiry from the Registry, it was found ...
Tag this Judgment!Amkhabhai Dhirabhai Damor Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. This application being successive bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with C.R. No.I-6 of 2011 registered with Ditwas Police Station, District: Panchmahal, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed and the deceased was staying with the applicant since last 20 years and as per trible custom the applicant had married again with co-accused who is enlarged on bail. By imposing suitable conditions the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter, I find this is a fit case for granting bail since charge-sheet is also filed. Under the circumstances, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I-6 of 2011 regist...
Tag this Judgment!Veljibhai Gagubhai Dhamsaniya Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. Present applicant – original appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 1998 has filed this application for recalling of the judgment and order dated 23.3.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 1998 on the ground that the appellant – applicant herein and original complainant have settled the dispute amicably. He has also prayed to join the original complainant as party respondent No.2. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Mini Nair for the State. 3. It is pertinent to note that vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2011, this Court has disposed of the main Criminal Appeal, after hearing the learned advocates of the parties. Looking to the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and looking to the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the final judgment is passed, this Court has no power to review or recall the order or judgment passed by this Court, except there is any cleric...
Tag this Judgment!Yogeshbhai Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. Heard learned counsel Mr.Hriday Buch for the applicant and learned APP Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent. 2. Rule. Learned APP Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent waives service of notice of rule. 3. The present application has been filed praying for passport which he has deposited into the court below in view of condition imposed on the applicant by the trial court while releasing the applicant on bail. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Buch for the applicant submitted that the applicant had produced the documents to show that the children are studying in the abroad and that the applicant has to go for completing the income tax formalities and also to attend the business. It is further submitted that the applicant had gone to USA in the year 2010 and had come back within a period of four months and therefore there is no reason for the trial court not to release the passport to the applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant Yogesh Bhailalbhai Patel will...
Tag this Judgment!Khatri Surendrakumar Kantilal Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
1. Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari and learned advocate, Mr.Anip Gandhi, waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 2. The present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2009 and order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Mehsana below Exh.3 in Criminal Case No.5635 of 2006. 3. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Pratik Barot for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.Gandhi for the respondent No.2. 4. It is jointly submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the matter is settled between the parties as per the settlement terms. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Barot for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited entire cheque amount as well as R...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Govind Vaghamsi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. K.R. Dave for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.J. Shah for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This writ petition was initially filed for a direction to the respondents not to work contrary to the Scheme under the Town Planning Act and the Land Acquisition Act by changing the road line and additional proposed acquisition of the land. By way of amendment, the petitioners have challenged the proposal for change in the Scheme and urged that it was not based on necessity and it may be set aside and the earlier proposal be accepted. By adding relief 13(4A), a direction in the nature of mandamus was sought that the proposal of variation by the respondent No.2 dated 27.5.2002 in the development plan of Anjar and its approval dated 30.1.2003 be set aside. 3. The land was acquired for construction of road by notification dated 4.4.2003 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short). Subsequently, the proposal...
Tag this Judgment!iqbalbhai Ibrahimbhai Arandia Vs. Satwara Valji Nathu and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
1. By way of this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – third party has prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01/11/2006 passed by learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar below Exh.142 in Special Civil Suit No.151 of 1996, by which, in Suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 - original plaintiffs for partition of the Suit properties, application submitted by the petitioner, who is purchaser of the Suit property, to be impleaded as a party-defendant in the aforesaid Suit, has been rejected. 2. Mr.Viral Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that if the petitioner has not been permitted to be joined as party- defendant in the aforesaid Suit, rights of the petitioner are likely to be affected and in future it may be said that the decree which may be passed in the aforesaid Suit shall be binding to the petitioner also. 3. Mr.Mihir Thakore, l...
Tag this Judgment!icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Jayantibhai Maganbhai Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. The present First Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 30/12/2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Kheda at Nadiad below Ex.3 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1658 of 2009 awarding Rs.25,000/- to the original claimant by way of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for “No Fault Liability”. 2. Having heard Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original Opponent No.2 – ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, as the impugned order is passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by which the Tribunal has awarded interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the present appeal is not entertained. However, it is observed that deposit of any amount pursuant to the said order, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the main claim petition and all the defences and contentions, which are avai...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Through Secretary, Govt. of India and anr. Vs. S. A. P ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. P.S. Champaneri for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the time granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal for deciding the appeal of the respondent be extended. 3. The Tribunal in Original Application No.233 of 2010 with M.A. No.269 of 2010, directed the petitioners to decide the appeal of the respondent pending before them within two months from the date of receipt of the order. 4. In spite of the time granted by the Tribunal, the appeal of the respondent was not decided. An application was filed by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal for extension of time, wherein it was stated that prior to the order of the Tribunal, on 21.9.2010, the appeal was referred to the Union Public Service Commission for its advice and the advice has not been received by the petitioners. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is admitted that defects in the appeal was removed by the respondent pri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »