Gujarat Court September 2014 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.
Bhavnagar Panjrapole Thro' Manager Brijesh Himatlal Shah Vs. State of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
1. Applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.09.2013 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar at Mahuva in Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has while allowing the revision application, quashed and set aside the order dated 29.06.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja in Criminal Misc. Application No. 268 of 2013. Such application was preferred by present respondent No.2 for possession of 6 buffaloes and one calf of buffalo under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Such animals were taken into custody by the police pursuant to First Information Report registered with Talaja Police Station being II - C. R. No. 91 of 2013 filed by Indrajitsinh Kumarsinh Vala under Section 11(1)(d)(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read with Section 132A and 41(III)D of the Motor Vehicles Act with an allegation that all such animals were cruelly loaded in a small truck and hidden below cover for...
Gangaram L. Bhanushali and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.N.L.Ramnani for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No.1 - State. As the revision is pending since the year 2009, there is no option but to decide it finally. 2. The record shows disturbing history inasmuch as appeal was initially filed in the month of March, 2009 and, ultimately, it was dismissed for default in the month of December, 2009. Thereafter, pursuant to order dated 15.12.2009 i.e. just within a week, when main revision application is restored to the file by an order in Criminal Misc.Application No.13999 of 2009, practically, original set of revision must be available with the Registry and should be listed for further hearing at the earliest. However, it seems that right from 9.12.2009, no steps have been taken and it seems that only on 16.7.2013, some papers were collected by the Registry probably from some unknown source, since there is no clarity on rec...
Kavitaben Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Rule. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned counsel for Mr. Bhushan B. Oza, learned advocate for respondent no.2 waives service of notice of rule while Ms. J.D. Jhaveri, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1 State. 2. Though this is an application to cancel the bail and may be dealt with considering the settled principle of law relating to the subject, after submission of both the sides and on scrutiny of available record as well as papers of chargesheet submitted by the respondent, irrespective of the relief of bail in favour of respondent no.2, the Court has no option but to take care of the relevant material, impugned order and to pass certain observations, directions which will follow after referring certain materials from the record and discussion thereon in following manner. 3. The applicant herein is wife of the victim whose dead body was found in a burnt car. On the day of incident, present applicant who is being a wife ...
Dilipbhai Jivabhai Katariya Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
1. All these four applications are on the same issue and against same impugned order and, therefore, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Practically, for all the applicants only one set of arguments have been advanced by learned senior counsel Mr.N.D.Nanavati. Whereas, for private respondents, since four revision applications are there, different senior counsels have without overlapping their submissions submitted different issues and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.H.L.Jani has argued on behalf of the State. The impugned order in all the revision applications is dated 20.07.2013 below Exh.8 in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2013 by Sessions Judge, Porbandar. Such application was filed by appellant being original accused No.4 in such appeal, u/s.389 of the Cr.P.C. to stay his conviction in Criminal Case No.11258 of 2006 and Criminal Case No.117 of 2008 confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar. The appellant before the Sessions Court is challenging such co...
Tanumatiben Mukeshkumar Parikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and An ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
1. The applicants herein are the original applicants, whereas Respondent No.2 herein is the original respondent before the Family Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2427 of 2011 preferred by the present applicants claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/ from the Respondent No.2. By impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2013, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad, has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/ for applicant No.1, Rs.4,500/ for applicant No.2 and Rs.3,500/ for applicant No.3 to be paid by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 are husband and wife, whereas applicants No.2 and 3 are their minor Sons. 2. So far as rights and liabilities of the parties are concerned, when the respondent No.2 being husband has not challenged the impugned judgment, practically, he has accepted his liability to pay the maintenance, and therefore, the reasons for disturbance and separation between the husband and wife are not material at present, and t...
Rajesh @ Ganga Nandlal Thakur Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.06.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 6 th Fast Track Court, Gondal camp at Jetpur, in Sessions Case No.46 of 2005, whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8 read with Sections 21(b) and 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropics Substance Act ("the NDPS Act" for short) and was sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) and in default, to undergo further 1 year simple imprisonment. The learned Judge has also passed an order that period that the appellant-accused spent in judicial custody, shall be given set off. 2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that one Mr.S.O.Vadher, Police Sub-Inspector, Jetpur Taluka Police Station, filed a complaint, inter alia, stating that on 05.05.2005 at 3:00 hours, he received an information that one Rajesh @ Ganga Thakor working as ...
Rabiyabibi Vs. Abbasbhai Gulamhussein Shaikh and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
[1] At the request of the learned Advocate Mr.J.T.Trivedi for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr.Mehul S.Shah, for respondent No.1, the matter is taken up for hearing for final disposal. [2] Rule. Mr.Mehul S.Shah, learned Advocate waives service of rule for respondent No.1. The learned advocate Mr.J.T.Trivedi has declared that respondent Nos.2, 2/1 to 2/4 and 3 to 5 are formal parties against which learned advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah for respondent No.1 has not taken any serious objection. [3] The present petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.16 in Misc. Civil Appeal (Appeal from Order) No. 1 of 2013 whereby learned Judge dismissed the Appeal from Order and confirmed the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Trial Judge below injunction application at Exh.6 in H.R.P. Suit No. 1215 of 2012. [4] The short facts of the case are that deceased father of the present petitioner-origina...
Arunaben Pranshankar Dave Vs. Narendra Shankarbhai Dave and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for hearing for final disposal. 2. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr.K.T.Dave for the respondent No.1, who appears on caveat, waives service of notice of rule. 3. The case on hand is a classic example of unscrupulousness of the then tenants, who have attempted to bypass the undertaking given by them before the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking help of their sister and tried to continue to harass the existing landlord-respondent No.1-original plaintiff-decree holder, who is 86 years old and who is as such the near relative of the original tenant as well as the present petitioner and the then tenants-respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, waiting and fighting the legal battle with a desire that he will be able to enter his house in question during his lifetime. It is to be noted that though this Court is experiencing great pain while considering the issue involved in the case, this Court is quite con...
Janak Shivlal Rajpurohit Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner, claiming to be a public spirited citizen, has brought to our notice an issue relating to the protecting of the water bodies and environment. 2. The case made-out by the petitioner may be summed-up thus: 2.1 The respondent nos.1 to 3, namely, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Housing and Development Department and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation respectively have failed to take the necessary effective steps to identify and protect the water bodies, as directed by this Court vide its order dated 2 nd August, 2002, passed in Special Civil Application No. 10621 of 2000 and allied matters. 2.2 The respondents have alienated the "Lakhudi Talavadi" and is now proposing to put-up construction on the lake, in flagrant disregard and violation of the orders issued by this Court time to time. 2.3 The respondents nos.1 to 3 have fail...
Praful Khandubhai Desai and Another Vs. Vadodara Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner, running an NGO in the name of "Jagte Raho" at Vadodara, has prayed that the work of construction of a flyover at the Harinagar Junction on Gotri Road of Vadodara City be stopped and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation be directed to reconsider its decision of constructing the Flyover at the Harinagar junction. 2. The petition in public interest is substantially on two grounds. First, that the corporation has awarded the contract for construction of the flyover without studying the report of the Central Road Research Institute and secondly, the contract has been awarded at a much higher price. 3. The respondent no.1 - Vadodara Municipal Corporation has denied the allegations leveled in the petition and prays that the petition is not a bonafide Public Interest Litigation and the same is at the behest of one Shri Pravinsinh, a private individual whose property falls in the alignmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »