Gujarat Court July 2013 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Lalitaben @ Shardaben Haribhai Thakkar and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant State has challenged the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.8.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Sessions Case No. 136 of 1991 whereby the original accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted accused No. 2 of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code also. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Bhanuben was daughter in law of accused No. 1 and wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 3 is the wife of accused No. 5 who is brother of accused No. 2. Accused No. 4 is sister-in-law of deceased Bhanuben. It is stated in the complaint that after marriage, deceased Bhanuben could not bear a child for a long time. Therefore, the accused persons were harassing her mentally and physically. They wer...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinbhai Ramjibhai Vegad (Kumbhar) Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (K.J. Thaker, J.) 1. Since, both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order of the trial Court, Dated : 11.07.2006, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1738 of 2006 is preferred by the original accused No.5, challenging his conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing punishment of imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for further five months as well as his conviction under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and imposing punishment of imprisonment for six months, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 2079 of 2006 is filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1 and 3, vide judgment and order rendered by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2004. 3. For the sake of brevity, all the accused shall be mentioned with their original numbers, resp...
Tag this Judgment!Mazharali A. Saiyed Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
A.G.Uraizee, J. (Oral Judgment) 1. This petition is directed against order dated 6/7/2005 passed by the Central Administration Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in OA no. 293/2004 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Tribunal? for the sake of convenience and brevity). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected OA filed by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth from 5/5/1944 to 5/4/1946. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition, it is necessary to capture brief facts as enumerating from the impugned order of the Tribunal. 2.1 The petitioner approached the Tribunal for correction of his date of birth by filing OA no. 224/2004, which came to be disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 10/5/2004, directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner as per the available record and settled position of law and to take decision thereon keeping in mind that the petitioner was to retire on 31/5/2004 since the representation of the petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sejalben Bhavikbhai Vohoti Vs. Bhavikbhai Amrutlal Vihoti and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1. Heard Mr.Anil H. Soni, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Nehul L. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and Ms.Jirga D. Jhaveri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2- State. 2. This Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner-wife challenging the judgment and order dated 26.12.2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad in Misc. Criminal Application No.924 of 2008 wherein though amount of maintenance has been awarded in favour of the present petitioner and her minor daughter, namely, Devanshi, so far as, amount of maintenance of the petitioner is concerned, it is awarded for a limited period from 17.04.2008 i.e. the date of application, till 20.07.2011 which is the date of the judgment in favour of the present petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the same Family Court in Family Suit No.612 of 2008. The petitioner by filing the present revision application challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Citizens Resource and Action Initiative Cranti Vs. State of Gujarat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. This writ-application in the nature of a public interest litigation has been filed by an organization claiming to be engaged in creating awareness amongst the people regarding their fundamental rights and duties, helping the people to inform through Right to Information Act, creating awareness and accountability in the Government, to make the benefits and services reach the common man, creating an able and strong citizen who can form a lively and responsive democracy, and has prayed for the following reliefs:- A. Direct that financial compensation of Rs. 5 lac be paid by Government to the family of the deceased farmers who have committed suicide due to crop failure in the State; B. Direct that financial aid to farmers at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per hectare be paid to the farmers who have suffered crop failure; C. Direct that the loans obtained by the farmers from the banks and financial institutions for agricultural purposes be waived and further loans be given; D....
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal L Patel Vs. Snehalben Bharatbhai Patel and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
Cav Judgemnt: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of the respondent No.2, a private respondent, in Special Civil Application No. 888 of 2013 and is directed against an order dated 3rd May 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship, while issuing a Rule on such application, passed an interim order directing the respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation and/or the Standing Committee or any other officer/authority of the respondent- Corporation not to take any final decision on the report of the Inquiry Officer whereby the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent No.2 from all charges. The learned Single Judge further directed that any decision with regard to the report of the Inquiry Officer and/or any other order i.e. order other than the one which is presently under operation as regards suspension of the respondentNo.2 may not be taken without intimation to and permission by the Court. 2. Being dissatisfied, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Vraj R Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
Common Cav Judgemnt: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. These three writ-applications were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment as the main prayer in all these writ-applications is to declare Rule 8 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 [the Compulsory Education Rules, 2012, hereafter] as ultra vires the Constitution of India and also the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [RTE Act, 2009 hereinafter]. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respective Schools to refund the fees for the academic year 2012-13. 2. For discussion of facts, Special Civil Application No. 9879 of 2013 is taken as the lead matter and the facts leading to the filing of the said petition may be summed up thus: 2.1 The petitioner was born on 14th August 2009. The petitioner was admitted in the Junior KG in the respondent No.3 School on 13th December 2011 and paid the fees for such admission. According to the report card giv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›