Gujarat Court October 2014 Judgments
Arvind Mithabhai Gohil Vs. State Of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Order: 1. Rule Learned APP waives service. 2. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with First Information Report registered as I- C.R. No.104/2014 with Bhimasar Police Station, Gandhidham, Kutch (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, prima-facie, a perusal of the First Information Report clearly indicate voluntary accompaniment and five day of the informant's stay with the applicant, in presence of one - Kamlaben, in the house possessed by her. It also transpires that after garlanding each other (representing the act of marriage), the victim stayed with the applicant as aforesaid and allowed him to have frequent sexual intercourse with her, although she alleges such an act as involuntary. 4. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment, prescribed for the all...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Mithabhai Gohil Vs. State Of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Order: 1. Rule Learned APP waives service. 2. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with First Information Report registered as I- C.R. No.104/2014 with Bhimasar Police Station, Gandhidham, Kutch (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, prima-facie, a perusal of the First Information Report clearly indicate voluntary accompaniment and five day of the informant's stay with the applicant, in presence of one - Kamlaben, in the house possessed by her. It also transpires that after garlanding each other (representing the act of marriage), the victim stayed with the applicant as aforesaid and allowed him to have frequent sexual intercourse with her, although she alleges such an act as involuntary. 4. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment, prescribed for the all...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Enterprise Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order of respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Income Tax-I at Annexure-L rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short)on the ground that the petitioner had not made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the revision application; and has also prayed to quash the order levying penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act at Annexure A, dated 12.3.2010, and has sought further direction against respondent No.1 to refund the penalty amount of Rs.1,13,32,499.00 with interest. 2. As per the facts stated in the petition, the petitioner filed his return of income declaring loss of Rs.4,63,776.00 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.1...
Tag this Judgment!Shaileshkumar Nathalal Modh and Others Vs. Chaudhary Takahatben Keshar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the 'Code') filed below Exh.106 in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 by the petitioners - original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') for amendment of their plaint. 2. With a view to properly understand and appreciate controversy involved in this petition, case set-up by the parties, out of which this petition has arisen and on which, learned Senior Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, needs to be briefly noted. The facts are as under:- 2.1. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur against the respondent - defendant in the month of April, 2008 for specific performance of Agreement to Sale dated 09.04.2007 executed by the respondent - de...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Navinchandra Sanghani Vs. State Of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2014
Oral Order: 1. By way of the present application under Section- 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR registered at CR No. I-37 of 2013 before DCB Police Station, Surat on 13/12/2013, for the offenses punishable under Sections 213, 214, 217, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. 2. Brief facts of the present case, are as under : 2.1 That one Mr.J.K.Zala, Assistant Commissioner of Police, "B" Division Police Station, Surat, had lodged an FIR on 13.12.2013, before DCB Police Station, Surat, against different accused persons including the present applicant, alleging inter alia that one of the accused, namely, Narayan Sai, who is facing serious charges for an offence registered at CR No. I-31of 2013 with Jehangirpura Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 354, 357, 342, 346, 143...
Tag this Judgment!Mukeshkumar Ratansingh Thakore Vs. State Of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Nasir Saiyed appearing for Mr. SR Yadav for the appellant and Ld. APP Mr. Pujari for the respondent - State. 2. The appellant has been convicted by the judgment and order dated 31/12/2010 in Sessions Case No. 72/2003 by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No. 2 of Banaskantha at Deesa for the offence punishable under section 498-A and under section 306 of the of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and sentenced to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment [RI] of seven years for the offence punishable under section 306 and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment [SI] for one month and sentenced to undergo RI of two years for the offence punishable under section 498-A and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer SI for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. At the outset, Ld. Advocate Mr. Saiyed for the appellant has submitted that he has instructions from...
Tag this Judgment!Dipikaben Mayankkumar Patel Vs. Talati Cum Mantri and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Ms.Jully Balvantrai Oza, TalaticumMantri, respondent No.1, has appeared in person and has waived the service of notice of Rule. Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.2 and 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally. 2. This petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, interalia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28.07.2014, passed by respondent No.1, Talaticum Mantri, Pardhol Gram Panchayat, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad, whereby the application of the petitioner for change of date of birth in the Register of Births and Deaths and the issuance of a Birth Certificate, has been directed to be filed, on the ground that respondent No.1 does not have the power to carry out the necessary correction. 3. As per the case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Deceased Rajendrasinh Harbhamji Jadeja's Heirs Vs. Deceased Mansukhlal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
1. Rule. Mr.Nikunt K.Raval, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Mehul S.Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally. 2. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 30.11.2013, passed by the learned 10th Additional District Judge (adhoc), Rajkot ("the Appellate Court", below the applications at Exs.5 and 27, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2011, whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot ("the Trial Court") below the applications at Exs.5 and 27, in Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 1999, has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as presented in the petition, are that l...
Tag this Judgment!Tileshwar Devnarayan Rai Vs. Anil Vinayak Pimputkar and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. J. T. Trivedi for the appellant and learned senior counsel Mr. S. R. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojia for all the respondents. 2. Pursuant to order dated 29.11.2013, parties have produced compilation of relevant papers and made submissions for final disposal of the appeal. 3. The appellant is original plaintiff; whereas respondents are original defendants before the Civil Court at Valsad, camp @ Vapi in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2011. In such suit, plaintiff has prayed for specific performance to agreement to sell dated 10.01.1981 and possession receipt dated 25.12.1982 with alternative relief of declaration that because of suit property is in possession of the plaintiff since the year 1981 - 1982 it amounts to an adverse possession for more than 30 years with a permanent injunction as restraining the defen...
Tag this Judgment!State Of Gujarat and Another Vs. Bariya Dipanjao Shankarbhai and Anoth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
1. Heard learned AGP Shri K.P. Rawal for the petitioner. 2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the of the constitution of India, interalia, assailing the order and award dated 31.3.2014 passed in Reference (LCH) No. 133 of 2006 by Labour Court, Himmatnagar, whereby, the Labour Court issued direction for payment of 50% back wages, as during pendency of the Reference, the workman had in fact been reinstated. 3. The facts in brief, leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from the memo of petition deserve to be set out as under: 4. The respondent workman had to raise Industrial Dispute as he was worked as Watchman since 1989 till 11.4.2006, however, in order to avoid creation of proof of service, the workman was not given any I-card or any payment slip etc. As the workman was agitating for his legitimate right and its enforcement, he was relieved unceremoniously on 11.4.2006. While relieving the workman, no provisions of I.D. Act were followed. The workman ra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »