Gujarat Court June 2011 Judgments
Haridasbhai Vs. Pareshbhai Chandrakant Shah Prop. of Krishna Steel Tra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. The applicant – original defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the learned Small Cause Judge, Vadodara [herein after be referred to as “the Lower Court”] below Ex.10 in Summary Suit No.38 of 2010. 2. It appears that the present respondent – original plaintiff has filed Summary Suit No.38 of 2010 before the Lower Court against the applicant - defendant seeking recovery of Rs.75,805/- under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been alleged in the plaint that the present applicant- original defendant did not make payment of Rs.75,805/- for the goods supplied by the plaintiff as per the invoices or bills as narrated in the plaint. It has also been alleged that though the notice was served upon the defendant, the defendant did not make the payment of the said goods and, therefore, the suit was filed. It appears th...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh L. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari and learned advocate, Mr.A.V.Nair, 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 of FIR registered as II – C.R.No.3434 of 2010 before Saher Kotada Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sec. 507 of Indian Penal Code in pursuance of complaint filed by the respondent No.2-complainant. 3. Heard learned advocate, Mr.K.P.Champaneri for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.A.V.Nair 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. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Nair for the complainant that the matter is settled between the parties and he seeks permission to place on record the affidavit of the complainant. Per...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantlal Mangaldas Mehta and anr. Vs. Dhariniben Dilipbhai Mehta and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Heard learned APP Shri KP Raval for Respondent no.2 State. 2. The petitioners, who have been named as accused in M.Case No. 13 of 2003 filed by respondent no.1 wife, filed against her husband and in-laws alleging offence punishable under section 498-A, 323, 420 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 & 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have approached this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the complaint arising there from on the grounds that the respondent no.1 the complainant has filed this complaint by abusing the process of law as the complaint on the face of it does not disclose any offence which is alleged to have been committed by the present petitioners. 3. Respondent no.1 original complainant happened to be wife of accused Dilip Vasantlal Mehta, who has been named as accused no.1 and daughter-in-law of present petitioners. Petitioner no.1 happens to be father-in-law aged about 80 years and mother-in-law aged abou...
Tag this Judgment!Alkesh Pranjivanbhai Patel Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of Rule for the respondent Corporation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel 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) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, respondent herein; (B) Your Lordships be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to and is rightly given pay scale of Rs.8000-13500(pay scale of the post of Deputy Chief Auditor) with effect from 1.8.2005 and that no correction is required to be made in the same; (C) Your Lordships be pleased to pass a cease and desist order to permanently restrain the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbhar Valjibhai Parsottambhai and ors. Vs. Kumbhar Galalben Narsinhb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Extra Asst. Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No.100/1989 dated 21.08.1997 whereby, the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No.794/1981 dated 06.07.1989 was set aside and the appellants, org. defendants no.2 to 4 were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent, org. plaintiff. 2. The facts in brief are that original respondent no.1 herein, org. plaintiff, preferred R.C.S. No.794/1981 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh inter alia stating that he is the owner of the house situated near the Tar Bungalow in Kumbharwada area of Junagadh City. A certain part of the house, viz. a hut, was given on rent to deceased Parsottambhai Jivabhai, father of org. defendants no.1 to 3 and husband of org. defendant no.4 on a monthly r...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdip Rameshbhai Nagrale Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. We have heard Mr Vishal Mehta holding brief of Mr A.J. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that by mistake he could not file the order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Accountant General (A & E), Rajkot, Gujarat, copy of which he has placed before us. The same is take on record of the petition. 3. This intra court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 18.6.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.183 of 2010 as well as the order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Accountant General (A & E), Rajkot, Gujarat The facts of the case in brief as as under: 4. Father of the petitioner Rameshbhai B Nagrale was working as Sr. Accountant of the office of the Accountant General (A & ), Ahmedabad. He died in harness on 15.11.2007 after serving more than 35 years. The petitioner is the second son of the deceased employee and he made an application for appointment on compassionate groun...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Thro. a G Patel Vs. Kedarnath Kanjilal Agrawal and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th December, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, in Criminal Case No.01 of 1998. The said case was registered against the respondents–original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(m), 7(1)(5) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). 2. This Court vide order dated 09th July, 2009 ordered to delete the case against respondent Nos.5 and 6 and vide order dated 25th September, 2009 abated the case against respondent No.1 as he was passed away. 3. According to the prosecution case, respondent No.2 is shop and respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 are the partners of the respondent No.2 shop. The respondent-Kedarnath having business of selling grocery and oil. It is the case of the prosecution that th...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarbhai Shantilal Chauhan President Vs. Bhaniben Bhanabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. By way of present Revision Application, the applicants have inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12th June 2001 passed by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No.39 of 1992, whereby the Appellate Bench has reversed the judgment and decree dated 05th March 1992 passed by the trial Court in H.R.P. Suit No.1334 of 1985. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicants-original plaintiffs instituted H.R.P. Suit No.1334 of 1985 in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, against the opponents- original defendants to recover the possession of the suit premises and the arrears of rent as well as mesne profit, etc. inter alia on the ground that the opponents carried out permanent structure and alteration in the rented suit premises without obtaining permission or consent of the applicant-Trust. 3. The said suit ultimately came to be decreed partly by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05th ...
Tag this Judgment!Prahladbhai Manilal Parmar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secre ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. B.S. Brambhatt for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.J. Shah for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.9.2010 in Special Civil Application No.10806 of 2010, the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the present Appeal are that the appellants are serving as Class-IV employees under respondent No.2, i.e. Road and Building Design Circle Gandhinagar and have filed a writ petition seeking direction against the respondents to allot plot at Gandhinagar at concessional rate under the policy of the State Government. According to the case of the appellants, their post of Class-IV employees under the respondent No.2 is a Non-Transferable post and they are entitled to plots at Gandhinagar at concessional rate in light of the Government Resolution dated 27.12.2001. As per the case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhabhai Morabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
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 30th April, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Special Case No.08 of 1992, 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 simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and also imposed fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, and also imposed fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further per...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »