Gujarat Court August 2014 Judgments
Hitesh @ Hito Dhanjibhai Khimsuriya Vs. Commissioner of Police and Oth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned counsel for the parties.1.1 The respondent State has not filed affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, averments and contentions raised in the petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 9.3.2014 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 four offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide IC.R.Nos.74/2013, 170/2013, 277/2013 and 131/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 etc...
Tag this Judgment!Sadam Mohamad Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
Oral Judgment:1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned counsel for the parties.1.1 The respondent State has not filed affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, averments and contentions raised in the petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 23.5.2014 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 IC. R.No.40 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 etc. of I.P.C., by i...
Tag this Judgment!Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
1. All these References were taken up for hearing together as the same question of law as formulated below has been referred before this Bench by the learned Single Judge in all the Special Civil Applications: In absence of specific exclusion of applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 [Act, 1963] in Bombay Stamp Act, application under Section 53 of the Act 1958 [Act, 1958] whether delay in filing appeal/application under Section 53 of the Act, 1958 beyond the prescribed time limit of within 90 days from the date of passing the order by the Collector/competent authority could be condoned by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Appellate Authority or the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be by taking recourse to Sections 3,5 and 29 of the Act, 1963? It appears that before the learned Single Judge, the petitioners challenged the orders passed by the authority under section 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 [the Act for short] by w...
Tag this Judgment!Ajab Singh Vs. National Seeds Corporation Limited and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
A.G. Uraizee, J. 1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Y.N. Oza assisted by learned Advocate Mr. M.J. Mehta and learned Advocate Mr. Kirti Dave for the respondents No.1 and 2. 2. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the oral order dated 01.02.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.341/2004 whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant is dismissed. 3.The necessary facts for disposal of this Appeal in brief are that the appellant challenged the order dated 24.05.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority allowing punishment of reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay by five stages for period of five years which came to be imposed on the appellant. The disciplinary authority also provided that during the aforesaid period, the appellant would not be entitled to earn increments and after expiration of the period of five years, it will have the effect of postponing the future increments of the appellant. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokumar Narsinhbha Bhil Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order, etc. and heard learned advocate Mr. H. B. Champavat for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Ms.Megha Chitaliya for the respondent State. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the proposed order of detention, if any, 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 detenu as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. 4. 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 I C.R. No. 103 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokumar Narsinhbha Bhil Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order, etc. and heard learned advocate Mr. H. B. Champavat for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Ms.Megha Chitaliya for the respondent State. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the proposed order of detention, if any, 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 detenu as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. 4. 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 I C.R. No. 103 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Majidmiyan Dilbasmiyan Malek Vs. The State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.G. Uraizee, J.)1. The appellant original accused was inter alia sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and was directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code by impugned judgement and order dated 30.10.2004 in Sessions Case No. 267 of 2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nadiad.2. At the outset, it needs to be stated that the appellant, during the pendency of this appeal, was released on temporary bail by this Court for 15 days vide order dated 28.12.2005 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15080 of 2005 on the ground of his own treatment and was required to surrender himself before the jail authorities on or before 22.01.2006 but he misused the liberty granted in his favour by this court and is absconding till date. However, in view of the order dated 17.02.2009 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 918 of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›