Gujarat Court March 2015 Judgments
Sankarda Sanyukt Kheti Sahkari Mandali Limited and Another Vs. State o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
Oral Order: Challenge in this petition is made to the issuance of a show cause notice dated 2nd/3rd March 2015 issued by the respondent no. 2 herein under section 107 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 [the Act for short]. Brief facts are as follows : The petitioner-Society had challenged, in the earlier proceedings under section 107 of the Act initiated against the Society by the respondent no.2 where final order also came to be passed under section 107 of the Act and against which Special Civil Application No. 8309 of 2014 was preferred. It is the case of the petitioner-Society that the private individuals who own land, admeasuring more than 100 acres at village Sankarda, had formed a cooperative society for the purpose of cultivation of such land and to ensure that the same does not lie fellow, a society had been formed by engaging employees. It is the say of the petitioner-Society that not a single rupee of the Government had been involved either in formation or running...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Ambalal Ramdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The prosecution, i.e. the appellant- State, has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge (ACB) (Fast Track Court), Mehsana (for short, 'the Trial Court), Dated : 06.03.2004, rendered in Special (ACB) Case No. 7 of 1995, whereby, the trial Court acquitted the original accused-Respondent, herein, of the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3, and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short). 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original complainant was, at the relevant point of time, residing at Village:Jaspur. On the outskirts of Jaspur, there is a land of about 18 bighas, which belonged to the grand father of the complainant, who had expired before about seven years of the alleged incident. Since, the complainant wanted to get the names of his father and uncle entered into the Record of Rights, he approached the accused- Respondent, whereupon, the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Parmar Pursottambhai Somabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
Oral Judgment: Akil Kureshi, J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 27.10.09. Brief facts are as under: Appellant-petitioner was running a fair price shop at Balva for which the respondents had granted licence and authorization. On 16.7.2001, upon inspection of his fair price shop, the authorities noticed several deficiencies and defects. Quite apart from the various procedural defects and non-maintenance of stock, bill books, etc., major default on the part of the petitioner was that on the said day, he had received 2200 liters of kerosene from the distributor Patel Desai and sons at Kalol. Instead of returning with kerosene to his shop, he had proceeded in the vehicle to Kadi. On way to Karannagar, Mamlatdar, Kadi intercepted the vehicle and seized the kerosene. It appears that when the Mamlatdar intercepted his vehicle, the petitioner gave his statement which was recorded by the Mamlatdar. In his ...
Tag this Judgment!Botad Nagar Palika Vs. K.P. Nathani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 253 of 1994 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 50% back wages. 2. The facts of the present petition are that the respondent workman was working as Rojamdar and he was paid wage of Rs. 32.20 paise per day. He was given appointment for 29 days. After completion of 29 days, the petitioner Nagar Palika used to extend the appointment order for further period of 29 days after passing appropriate resolutions. On 9.1.1993 the services of the workman came to be terminated. The respondent workman raised industrial dispute in the year 1994 by filing statement of claim before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. He claimed reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner denied the claim of the workman by filing written statement. It is stated in the written statement that t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Virambhai Gelabhai Dhargiya and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Cav Judgment: Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.1185 of 2011 is filed by the State of Gujarat-original complainantappellant herein under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) for enhancement of sentence imposed upon the accused persons by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli on 29/07/2011 in Sessions Case NO.92 of 2008; whereas Criminal Appeal No.1435 of 2011 is filed by the appellants (original accused Nos.1 and 2) under Section 374(2) of the Code against the very judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 2. The original accused persons were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short BP Act) wherein at the end of trial, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit them for the offence under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the IPC. However, the accused persons were sente...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Maheshbhai Chhanabhai Sankhat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.7.2003 passed by the learned 2nd Fast Track Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 7/2003, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused the respondents herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with section 114 of IPC. 2. It is to be noted that the respondent no. 2 is reported to have passed away and this appeal qua respondent no. 2 has been abated vide order dated 21.12.2013. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Rameshbhai Vaghabhai Baraiya is residing at Jafarabada along with family members consisting of five sisters and five brothers. He is doing agricultural work. The deceased Hiraben was the younger sister of the complainant. She was married to the accused no. 1 eleven months prior to the incident. That on the day of the incident i.e. on...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Talab Jaku Bhokal and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.215/2002, whereby the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused-respondent herein, of the charges for the alleged offences. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant-deceased Januben was married to the accused Talab Jaku Bhokal three years prior to the incident. She was staying with her husband in the house of one Mubarakbhai at Khambhaliya Railway Station Road, Khambhaliya separately six months prior to the incident. It is further case of the prosecution that out of the said wedlock, they have one son viz. Firoz. The accused was dealing in cloths and was going outside the village for selling the same. The accused doubted the character of the deceased. One day prior to...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Deepsinh Dhansinh Jethva and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgement dated 30.09.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1986. The respondents-original accused were charged with offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. The State has, therefore, preferred this appeal. 2. As per the prosecution version, on 10.07.1986 at about 8.30 in the evening when deceased Samat Punja alongwith Kana Raja PW 5 Exh 14 and Manadan Duda PW 14 Ex 35 were passing by the house of accused No.1 Dipsinh Dansinh. On account of past enmity, all the three accused dragged the deceased Samat Punja inside the house and beat him up with the spear and sticks. Accused No.1 was carrying a spear with which he gave blows to the deceased. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were carrying sticks with which they beat up the deceased. The other two witnesses ran away and informed the relatives of Samat Punja who...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanbhai Medhabhai Dafda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By way of this appeal, the appellantState has challenged the judgment and order of the learned -Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amreli (for short, the trial Court), Dated : 04.08.2003, rendered in Special Case No. 1 of 1987, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the original accusedthe Respondent, herein, of the charges under Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161 and 201 of the IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original complainant, who is engaged in the field of agriculture, wanted to purchase some machinery through loan, and hence, he approached the original accused-Respondent, herein. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded Rs.400/- from the complainant for getting his loan sanctioned and for good opinion. Since, the complainant was not desirous of giving bribe, he approached the ACB officials and a trap was arranged, wherein, the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendrabhai Girdharbhai Saghvi Vs. Pinakin A. Patel and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
Common Cav Judgment: 1. As all these matters pertaining to the similar question, and parties are same in respect of the orders in question, they are heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. The present petitions have been filed under the Payment of Gratuity Act invoking Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner employer in all these petitions are same except the petitioner of S.C.A. No.2049 of 2014 and the respondent no.1 in all these petitions are the employees of different Cader, in whose favour respondent nos.2 controlling authority has passed the orders on different dates and the same have been confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent no.3, which are impugned in these petitions. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of these petitions with prayers setout there under. But, as the prayers are same in all these matters, except the date of order of Controlling Authority and the numbers of Gratuity Applications, for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »