Gujarat Court October 2012 Judgments
Ramesh P Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Oral Judgment: N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. The petitioner was a judicial officer serving as a Joint District Judge in the cadre of District Judge. He was subjected to two departmental inquiries one after another for various charges of misconducts in discharging his duty as Judicial Officer. Ultimately, respondent No.2 Disciplinary Authority rendered a common decision dated 24th March, 2009 in respect of both the inquiries and imposed penalty of dismissal under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The respondent No.1 thereupon issued Notification dated 04th May, 2009 dismissing the petitioner from service. 1.1 In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the said Notification dated 04th May, 2009 issued by the respondent No.1, as also the final decision dated 11th November, 2008/24th March, 2009 of respondent No.2. It is further prayed to reinstate h...
Tag this Judgment!Chirag K. Shukla Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Oral Order: 1. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:- 8(A)............. (B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to make payment of Rs.2.00 lacs by way of compensation towards the financial loss caused to the petitioner by respondent nos. 3 to 5 by destroying 40 boxes containing cooking butter in illegal, arbitrary and high-handed manner and further appropriate directions be issued upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 authorities to take appropriate action against the respondent nos. 3 to 5 by holding Departmental Inquiry for destroying 40 boxes containing cooking butter in illegal, arbitrary manner and imposing restriction in respect of usage of 53 boxes of cooking butter without there being any reason in absolutely illegal, arbitrary manner in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; (C).................. (D)................. 2. The petitioner seeks that the Court, in exercise of prero...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. These two Criminal Appeals along with a Criminal Misc. Application filed in one of these two appeals have been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi and Paresh Upadhyay, JJ.], vide order dated 27th June 2012 for considering the following issues: (i). Whether an appeal filed by the victim, invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C, challenging acquittal, or conviction for a lesser offence, or awarding inadequate compensation, is not maintainable, on the ground that the State has filed an appeal against the same order and for the same purpose ? (ii). Whether an appeal filed by the State should not be entertained, on the ground that the appeal preferred by the victim invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the same order, is admitted by the Court ? (iii). If the victim prefers an appeal before this Court, challenging the acquittal, invoking his right under proviso to se...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Punjabhai Vaghela Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
A.L. Dave, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad on January 30, 2006 in Sessions Case No.351 of 2004, whereunder, both the appellants came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(d) and 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each default. The accused were given benefit of set off and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant Babubhai Punjabhai Waghela in Criminal Appeal No.1364 of 2006 was accused no.1 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1749 of 2006 Vitthalbhai Mathurbhai Harijan was accused no.2 before the trial Court. Since these two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Construction Company Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The issue involved in this appeal is, whether the appellant is entitled to refund of the Earnest Money Deposit on withdrawal of the offer by the appellant. 2. This appeal is by the original plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil Suit NO. 52 of 1982 praying to pass decree of Rs.17892.00 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the ground that the above said amount was given by way of earnest money deposit to comply with one of the conditions of tender and since the offer was withdrawn by the appellant within the validity period of 120 days, the appellant was entitled to refund of the said amount of earnest money deposit. Learned trial Judge allowed the suit and declared the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs.17892.00 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till its realization. The respondent No. 2 challenged the above judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1990. The learned appellate Judge on interpretation of clause 1...
Tag this Judgment!Crestchem Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2012
Oral Judgment: 1.0 On a request made by learned advocate Mr. PK Shukla for the respondent, the matter is taken up for final hearing, to which, learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner has no objection. 2.0 The petition is filed by one Crestchem Ltd., through its Director challenging demand of damages and interest, made by the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent 'to refund amount of interest and damages of Rs.2,25,000/- which according to the petitioner, was wrongfully recovered by the respondent with interest'. 2.1 This petition was filed in the month of January 2006 and was taken up for hearing on 24th January 2006. The Court issued Notice returnable on 2nd February 2006, permitting to effect 'direct service'. On returnable date, learned advocate Mr. Shukla appeared for the respondent and requested for time and the matter was adjourned to 16th February 2006. On 16th February 2006, this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantram Vallabhdas Meswania Vs. Vallabhdas Govindram Meswania
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. In present petition, which portrays history of avoidable and unfortunate litigation between father and son the petitioner has prayed that: 10(B) THIS HONOURABLE COURT WOULD BE PLEASED TO allow present Application by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and direction quashing and setting aside the orders dated 14/5/2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Keshod, District Junagadh and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20th September 2012 passed by the District Collector, Junagadh, in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of present petition THIS HONOURABLE COURT WOULD BE PLEASED TO stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 14/5/2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, K...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Patel Institute Employees Union Vs. Sardar Patel Institute of E ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner, a registered Union, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs : (A) Writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the present respondents and the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 by which the higher pay scale is made applicable by way of policy of 9-18-27 years of service be also made applicable to the members of the present petitioner-Union who are the employees on the administrative side of the respondent no.1-Institute and the respondents be directed forthwith to calculate the benefits and remit the same to the individual members serving in the present respondent no.1 Institute. (B) By appropriate writ or direction, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Government decision produced at Annexure-H dated 24.1.2002 and be pleased to hold and declare that the benefit of 9-18-27 years of service is applicable to the employees of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamilaben Hanif Manek Vs. Sama Jusab Jasraya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: 1.00. RULE. Mr.Harshil Dattani, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.4 State. 2.00. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today. 3.00. Present Criminal Revision Application, under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner herein original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.9/9/2011 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamkhambhaliya, District Jamnagar application below Ex.75 in Sessions Case No.53 of 2009, by which the application submitted by the petitioner herein original complainant to arraign the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herei...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Parmar Naginkumar Prabhudas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: (Jayant Patel, J.) 1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.153/04, whereby the accused has been acquitted for the offence under sections 307, 324, 326 and 506(2) of IPC read with section 135 of Bombay Police Act. 2. It may be recorded that Criminal Appeal No.1709/05 has been preferred by the State against the order of the acquittal. Whereas Criminal Revision Application No.375/05 has been preferred by the original complainant against the very judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge for acquittal. 3. The short facts are that the complaint Ex-12 came to be filed by Jagrutiben, p.w.1, wife of the victim with Visnagar Police Station, stating that today, at about 1.00 noon, when she was with her husband in the compound of their house, the accused came to their place and gave a blow to her husband on right side of the stomach and her husband had fallen down and when the second blow was given, sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »