Gujarat Court November 2012 Judgments
Mansukhbhai Badhabhai Boricha Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
Oral Judgment: [1.0] Present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") for Leave to Appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No.4383 of 2000 by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar has acquitted the respondent No.2 herein original accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). [2.0] Facts leading to the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeal in nutshell are as under: [2.1] That the applicant herein original complainant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No.2 herein original accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque dated 24.06.1999 which was n...
Tag this Judgment!Virendrasinh Bhojrajsinh Jhala and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Ano ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The present application has been filed by the Applicants-original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following prayers: (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR being C. R. No. I 39 / 2012 registered with D.C.B. Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR, and (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to order that pending admission and final disposal of his petition, the investigation in connection with the said FIR being C. R. No. I 39 / 2012 registered with D.C.B. Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, be stayed, and (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further relief's to the petitioners, as are deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. Heard learned Sr. Counsel, Mr.P.M. Thakkar appearing with learned counsel, Mr.A.C. Choksi for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Nitrite Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anoth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2012
Common Oral Judgment: Heard learned advocates for the parties. Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 200 have been interalia containing the challenge to the orders dated 25.8.1999 and 21.10.1999 respectively passed by the authorities under Section 7A as well as Section 7D of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), holding and confirming that the establishment i.e. petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 is liable to make contribution equivalent to the cash value of food concession being available to the employees in the canteen run by M/s. Deepak Nitrite Limited Credit Cooperative and Multi purpose Co-operative Society (society). The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 2000 are the employees and office bearers of union and by this petition, they have challenged, as stated hereinabove, the aforesaid two orders and in addition thereto, pr...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Babulal Dave Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The present petition is filed by one Shri Naresh Babulal Dave challenging order dated 19.09.2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad (Annexure A), final award dated 31.12.2003 (Annexure B) passed in Reference (IT) No.303 of 2001 and last but not the least, order of dismissal dated 26.05.1999 (Annexure C). 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Viral M.Pandya for the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case are set out in para No.2 onwards in petition memo. The same are reproduced for ready perusal:- 2. The petitioner was appointed and joined the service of the respondent-Corporation as a Store Clerk and was posted to work as such in L.G. Hospital under the administration and control of the respondent-Corporation. 3. A chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 8.2.1994 that he had purchased plaster of paris on behalf of the respondent-Corporation not from the approved contractors under the rate contract, but from the outsider, which came to be of lower quality; that he purch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›