Gujarat Court December 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Modasa Road Transport Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs. Collector of Sabarkantha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2013
Oral Judgment Leave to correct the date is granted. 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioner, a Cooperative Society, has approached this Court by way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers: œ(A) The Special Civil Application be admitted; (B) Be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 23/8/96 in so far as not allowing the revision application No.233/95 by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 5/4/95 fully; (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application by this Honourable Court, be pleased to grant ad-interim stay of the operation of the judgment and order dated 23/8/96 passed by the respondent No.2 in appeal No. 233/95 by which he has directed to confiscate 2500 Ltrs. of diesel and al...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Oral Judgment 1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned advocate Ms.S.G. Patel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr.L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 6.8.2013 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by detaining the detenue as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. 3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that one offence registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide C.R. No.5108 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(b), 65(a)(e), 116(b), 98, 99 and 81 of Prohibition Act is not of such magnitude and intensity as to have the effect of ...
Vasantben Uttamgiri Goswami and Others Vs. Jyotiben Harigiri Goswami a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioners who happened to be some of the trustees of the trust of Shree Bhimnath Mahadev Temple, and who were opponents in the application being Misc. Application No. 12 of 2008 which came to be decided and disposed of vide order dated 23/9/2008, had approached this Court by way of this petition invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with following prayers. (A) to quash and set aside the impugned order at Annexure-N dated 23/9/2008 passed in Misc. Application No. 12/2008, (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, stay implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order at Annexure-N and the respondents are restrained from entering the temple premises or from insisting upon their so called right to perform Puja and from preventing the petitioners, family members, servants and agents from managing the affairs of the Bhimnath Mahadev temple and also perform Puja and Seva and collect the offerings and other things in the s...
Hinaben Jitubhai Patel Vs. Ranchhodbhai Sendhidas and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Oral Order: 1. The State of Gujarat, by present Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of bail filed under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenged the order passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No.4718 of 2013 dated 3.12.2013, whereby the respondent No.1 original accused No.3 was granted bail in connection with the offence registered before the Naranpura Police Station being I C.R. No.1 of 2012 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Dave for the applicant - complainant. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint can be stated thus: Present applicant complainant lodged FIR on 10.12.2012 against the present respondent No.1 along with other accused for the aforesaid offences. The center point of allegation in the FIR is such that the respondent No.1 and o...
State of Gujarat Vs. Narendra Gaurishankar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Oral Judgment 1. The applicant, by present Criminal Misc. Application filed under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code ) challenged the judgment and order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara below Exh.5 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1011 of 2013 whereby, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by exercising power conferred under section 438 of the Code has enlarged the opponent-accused on anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions. 2. The facts filtering out unnecessary details are thus: 2.1. According to the complainant, original accused persons by hatching a criminal conspiracy with a view to grab the land belonging to the original complainant bearing Revenue Survey Nos.480, 481, 483, 484/1, 484/2, 485 and 486 of which, the present opponent-accused and other accused persons had created bogus Banakhat on stamp paper of Rs.20/- and co-accused had made thumb impression on the said stamp paper and made their f...
Shivraj @ Shivku Rajabhai Vikma Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned advocate Mr.Atit Thakore for Mr. A.R. Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Ms.J.D. Jhaveri for the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 30.7.2012 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by detaining the detenue as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. 3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that three offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide C.R. Nos.5111 of 2011, 5112 of 2011 and 5136 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e), 116(b) and 81 of Prohibi...
Maheshbhai Bachubhai Bhut Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority and heard learned advocate Mr. Gogia for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Ms J.D. Jhaveri for the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 6.8.2013 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by detaining the detenue as a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. 3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the ground that one offence registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide I-C.R.No.171 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 114 of I.P.C. and Sections 37(1) and 1...
Ravjibhai Manorbhai Patel Vs. Deceased Chanchalben Wd/O Somabhai Ranch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Cav Judgment: 1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made by the original plaintiff, to the concurrent findings of both the Courts below against him, inter-alia that the suit was barred by limitation. The details of the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are as under. Trial Court : Principal Civil Judge, Borsad, Regular Civil Suit No.49 of 1998, judgment dated 12.03.2007, Appellate Court below : Additional District Judge, Anand, Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2007, judgment dated 16.02.2013 2. This Second Appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2013 on the following substantial questions of law. The said issues were framed ex parte, on hearing the appellant only. 1. whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit of the original plaintiffs could have been treated as time barred in view of the Article 110 of the Limitation Act? 2. whether the Court below have committed error of law in holding that the suit properties were not the ancestral propertie...
Afzal @ Khajur AllauddIn Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Challenge in the present petition preferred under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in Hadpari Case No.95/2012-13 as well as order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.247 of 2013 under section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short the Act ). 2. Heard the submissions of learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent State. 3. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on various grounds that the externment order is passed without application of mind. According to the petitioner, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 3.12.2012 is without application of mind, wherein the externing authority has mentioned that the petitioner should be externed from districts of Surat City, Surat (Rural), Bharuch, Tapi and Valsad. No reason has been given in the show cause notice why externment from these districts was proposed when the...
Kalidas Perumalswami Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2013
Oral Judgment 1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned advocate Mr.H.B. Raval for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr.L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 5.8.2013 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by detaining the detenue as a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. 3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the ground that two offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide I-C.R.Nos.240 of 2013 and 241 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 461 and 114 of I.P.C. respectively by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »