Gujarat Court March 2015 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.
Gitaben Vs. The State of Gujarat Through and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
Cav Judgment: 1. Rule. Mr.Udit D. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in this petition preferred under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 18.10.2014, passed by respondent No.2, District Development Officer and the order dated 16.12.2014, passed by respondent No.1, Additional Development Commissioner, whereby the order of respondent No.2, removing the petitioner as Sarpanch of Kadadara Gram Panchayat, has been confirmed. 3. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the petition, is that she was elected as the Sarpanch of Kadadara Gram Panchayat and was performing her duties as such. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2014 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2-District Development Officer, under Section-57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act, for short) to ...
Vanaji Ranchhodji Karkata (Rabari) Vs. District Development Officer an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
1. Heard Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- Issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the District Development Officer, Banaskantha. 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by order dated 02.03.2015, whereby the petitioner is declared disqualified, after having been elected to the post of Sarpanch. 4. The said order dated 02.03.2015 is passed in light of the provision under Sections 30(1)(m) read with 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order is unjust, improper and arbitrary. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the time when the election was notified and at the time when the petitioner got elected to the post of Sarpanch, the petitioner did not have more than two children...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bharatbhai N. Dantania
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
Oral Judgment: Vipul M. Pancholi, J. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17th January 1991 rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.233 of 1990. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under: That on the night of 2.9.88 and in the early morning of 3.9.88, the accused and the deceased were in their house. At that time, between 1.00 a.m. and 6.30 a.m., the accused has throttled his wife by pressing her neck and thereby committed murder and thereafter the accused has absconded from his house. Son of the accused, therefore, filed FIR before Shahpur Police Station. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed chargesheet before the learned Magistrate Court. The learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case to the learned Sessions Court which was numbered as Sessions Case No.233 of 1990. During the course of trial before the learned Sessions Court, the prosecution examined...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bharatbhai N. Dantania
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
Oral Judgment: Vipul M. Pancholi, J. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17th January 1991 rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.233 of 1990. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under: That on the night of 2.9.88 and in the early morning of 3.9.88, the accused and the deceased were in their house. At that time, between 1.00 a.m. and 6.30 a.m., the accused has throttled his wife by pressing her neck and thereby committed murder and thereafter the accused has absconded from his house. Son of the accused, therefore, filed FIR before Shahpur Police Station. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed chargesheet before the learned Magistrate Court. The learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case to the learned Sessions Court which was numbered as Sessions Case No.233 of 1990. During the course of trial before the learned Sessions Court, the prosecution examined...
Ashokbhai Khodidas Chalodiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
Common Cav Judgment: Since the question of law raised in all the captioned applications is the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The applicants herein, original accused, seek to challenge the legality and validity of the action of the police in registering different FIRs for the same offence alleged to have been committed in connection with the same transaction. According to the applicants, the First Information Report being C.R.No.I-26 of 2014 came to be registered with the DCB Police Station against the applicants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. A person by name Shamjibhai Ranchhodbhai Dabhi, residing at Surat, lodged the report alleging that he was cheated by the applicants. The case of the first informant so far as C.R. No.I-26 of 2014 is concerned, is that he is dealing in the business of purchase and sell of land for the purpose of devel...
State of Gujarat Vs. Rafikbhai Yusufbhai Nakum and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2015
Cav Judgment: 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant - State and learned Advocate appearing for the accused Mr. E.E. Saiyed. 2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.03.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in N.D.P.S. Case No.10/1999 whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act'). 3. The case in brief and the incident which occurred on 23.09.1999 are as under :- It was the festival of Ganesh Chaturthi and hence, on the said day the complainant alongwith his staff were on a patrol duty on the instructions of the DSP of Dabhoi. In the noon hours, when the entire team was patrolling in the area / jurisdiction falling under Karjan Police Station, a specific information would be ferrying ganja at about 5-6 pm in a ric...
Ashoksinh Pratapsinh Sarvaiya and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Oth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Mr.K.P.Raval, learned AGP, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers; (a) to allow this petition with costs and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of writ, as may be deemed to be appropriate, enjoining upon the respondents to give benefits to the petitioners, alike those given to other like employees in computing the period of service under the Resolution, dated 17101988, as directed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No.7725 of 2002, vide its Judgment, dated 08.12.2011 and give all the admissible benefits to the petitioners forthwith; and (b) to grant such further and other reliefs, as may be deemed to be just and proper. Thus, what is essentially urged by the petitioners as a relief is complete compliance with the order passed by this Court o...
State of Gujarat Vs. Jayantilal Dharamshi Mistri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 16.2.1999 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda camp at Anand in Sessions Case No.233 of 1992. The said case was registered against the present respondent-original accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Shanabhai Jethabhai is residing at Anand. Marriage of his sister Niruben had taken place with Jayantibhai Mistry, who is resident of Kutch. After marriage, Niruben was residing with her husband in a separate house and she was not residing with her in-laws. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased was used to complain about beating by the accused whenever she was visiting her parental home. On 27.11.1991 when the complainant was at his residence, wife of his brother had come and informed that Niruben has died. Therefore, the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vallabhdas Vithaldas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. These references were originally heard by a Division Bench consisting of Justice M.S.Shah and Justice D.A.Mehta. The question pertained to the interpretation of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) namely what would form the records which the Commissioner could place reliance upon for taking an order of assessment in revision. Learned members of the Bench had difference of opinion and the issue, therefore came to be referred to third Judge in terms of section 259 of the Act. To be able to appreciate the point of divergence between the two learned Judges, one may record in brief the background facts from ITR No.65 of 1998. 2. The reference arose out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18th March 1987. The assessment in the case of the assessee individual was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 19.2.85. On 27.8.81, search operations under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the residential premises of the son of the assess...
Dhanraj Jakhu Gadhvi (Seda) Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-2015
Oral Order By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of a show-cause notice issued by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mundra, Kachchh, dated 5 th February 2015, in exercise of his powers under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Kachchh, Banaskantha, Patan, Rajkot, Morbi and Surendranagar for a period of two years. On 3rd February 2015, the following order was passed by this Court : "By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus on the respondents and seeks quashing of the notice dated 24.12.2014, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mundra, Kutch. When this matter was taken up for hearing on 29.1.2015, I was surprised to find that the impugned notice is the one informing the petitioner to appear before the Authority on 19.1.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›