Gujarat Court May 2012 Judgments
Kantikumar Balubhai Katharia Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
CAV JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – a Night-Watchman working with the respondent authorities has prayed for the following reliefs : “13. 1. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition. 2. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of the respondent authorities as contained in letter of the respondent No.4 dated 11.10.200 at Annexure-E to the petition; and further be pleased to direct the respondents, their agents, servants, subordinate officers to give the petitioner regular pay scale of Rs.750-940 with effect from the date of his appointment and revised pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 with effect from 1.1.1996 and further direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary, grade stepping up and other benefits in the service at par with Shri H.K.Pur...
Tag this Judgment!Ajitbhai Revandas Patel and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present Criminal Revision Applications have been filed by the Petitioners challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2009 read with Criminal Revision Application No.60 of 2011 dated 14.10.2011 on the grounds stated in the memo of Revision Application. 2. Learned Advocate Mr.D.M.Thakkar appearing for the Petitioners - Original Accused has submitted that the Court below has relied upon the documents, which is not accepted. He submitted that the documents which have been referred, are not even produced by the prosecution, and therefore, such an order remanding the matter back is bad and it would amount to permitting the Respondent No.2 to fill up the lacuna. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the offence under Section 406 IPC is not proved as the necessary ingredients cannot be said to have been established. He referred to the provisions of Section 406 and submitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Fathesinh Maganbhai Bariya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
CAV JUDGMENT N.V. ANJARIA 1. As these two appeals arise from common judgment, they are being disposed of together. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1194 of 2006 was accused No.2 whereas appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1195 of 2006 was accused No.1 before the trial court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2006 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No.26 of 2006, both the accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC' for sake of brevity), and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further one month. They were convicted for offence under section 498-A read with section 114, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for further seven days. For the offence punishable under section 201 IPC, they were convicted and ...
Tag this Judgment!Pursottambhai Hirabhai Harijan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
CAV JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of learned Special Judge, Anand, passed in Special ACB Case No.11 of 1997 dated 28.5.2004, whereby the learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court), Anand was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded sentence to the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, i/d, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, i/d, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(gh) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Judge has ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Prosecution version is that on 1.5.1997 the complainant lodged a complaint before the ACB Inspector, ACB office, Nadiad, stating that the complainant was engaged in th...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others Vs. H/O Shanabh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellants-State under sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court (learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch) in LAR Case No. 341/2005 dated 6.7.2009 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal. 2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. KM Sheth for the respondent-original claimant. 3. Learned AGP Mr. Raval has submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record and has also failed to consider the quality/nature of the land as well as the potential development. It is contended that the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is without any reason and has taken into consideration the market price. It is therefore contended that the relevant criteria/principles for valuation of the land h...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip N. Sharma - Ips Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
CAV JUDGMENT By way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner, an IPS officer, seeks to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 31st March 2011 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat, granting sanction under Section 197 of the Code to prosecute the petitioner in connection with Criminal Case No.93 of 2002 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand. I need not adjudicate this petition for the simple reason that this Court, vide order dated 11.5.2012 passed in Special Criminal Application No.1467 of 2011, has quashed the order of process issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand, dated 3rd May 2011 in Court Inquiry No.93 of 2002. Since the very prosecution has been quashed, the issue of legality, validity and propriety of sanction under Section 197 of the Code pales into insigni...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Chhotalal Gandhi Vs. O.L. of Subh Laxmi Mills Ltd. (a Unit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
CAV JUDGMENT 1) The present Judge’s Summons is taken out with the following prayers : “A) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the amount of gratuity and retrenchment compensation as per the Settlement between Mills Company and Textile Labour Association; B) Direct the respondent to pay the amount of gratuity as per the settlement between the mills company and the Textile Labour Association; C) To grant such other and further relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2) Facts leading to the filing of this application may be summed up thus : The applicant appears to be one of the employees of M/s.Shubh Laxmi Mills, a unit of GSEC Ltd., which has gone under liquidation. It appears that the dispute in question is with regard to payment of retrenchment compensation. In the first round of litigation the Hon’ble Company Judge (Coram: Mr.Jayant Patel, J.) looked into this issue so far as the claim for retrenchment compensation is conce...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
CAV JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired Government Servant, has prayed for the following reliefs: “7. 1. direct the respondent authorities to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 29.9.2001, with all consequential benefits, and 2. award the cost of the petition, and 3. grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts of the case, and 4. pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to promote thepetiotner on the post of Superintending Engineer on ad hoc bass, and/or 5. grant any other relief in the nature of interim relief or pass any other order in the nature of interim order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts relevant for the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Dhulabhai Devrajbhai Rabariheirs and Legal Repres of Dec Khodabhai Rai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
CAV Judgment: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th June, 1980 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajpipla as well as the order dated 2/7 August, 2000 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) . 2. By order dated 13th June, 1980, the Deputy Collector ordered to remove the petitioner from the possession of the land and to hand over possession to respondent No.1 and also ordered to remove the name of the petitioner from the record by exercising powers under section 79 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. [“the Code” for short] The above order was passed by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the land in question situated in village Mangrol, Taluka Nandod, District Bharuch was purchased by the petitioner on 10.6.63 from Khodabhai Raijibhai who was Tribal and such transaction having taken place after 4.4.1961, same was in breach of section 73A of the Code. Above order of the Deputy Collector was challenged before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals, Gujarat State, Ahmedab...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Vardhman Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Minaz SadrudIn Chandanani an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present Second Appeal u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant herein – original defendant No.2 to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05/03/2012 passed by learned Appellate Court i.e. learned 5th Additional (Ad-hoc) District Judge, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2011, by which, learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the original plaintiff and quashed and set aside the order dated 12/08/2011 passed by learned Trial Court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge, Bhavnagar below Exh.1 and Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.393 of 2008 on condition that the plaintiff shall deposit Rs.2,000/- on or before 09/03/2012 in the trial court towards the cost of the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 16/03/2012 without fail after deposit of the above amount in the court with amended plaint to be submitted it on the same date i.e. 16/03...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »