Gujarat Court May 2015 Judgments
Haresh A Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The question, namely, what is cheating and breach of trust that is raised most often in the Courts, is once again raised in the present case. In a sense, context in the present case is somewhat novel as the question herein raised by the petitioner who at the relevant time was an auditor and was asked to carry out audit of the account of respondent No.2 “ co-operative society. The petitioner is one of the accused in criminal complaint lodged before Kevadiya Colony Police Station. Liability of auditor in the facts of the case, is in issue. 2. The relevant facts may be referred to; 2.1 The complainant is, Senapati in respondent No.2 “ society. It is registered co-operative society. It is alleged that duty of 'Senapatiis akin to a welfare officer. The said cooperative society is known as The Police Karmachari EmployeesCredit Society “ SRP Group14, Kevadiya Colony. There are five different co-operative societies of this SRP Group. They are known as; A, B,...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Nisarg Jayantkumar Gajera Thr. Anjanaben Jayantkumar GA Vs. Jaya ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2015
Common Oral Judgment: 1. Both the above Revision Applications arise from common judgment and order dated 16th October, 2012 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.456 of 2008 whereby the Family Court allowed Application filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for enhancement in the amount of maintenance to the applicant. The applicant is a minor son who filed said Application through his mother and guardian seeking increase in the maintenance from Rs.05,000/- to Rs.12,000/- every month. 2. As per the impugned order, the Family Court gave increase of Rs.03,000/- in the maintenance, enhancing the same to Rs.08,000/- to be paid from the date of Application, that is 08th of April, 2008. It was directed that the said enhanced maintenance would be payable till the applicant become major; Rs.01,000/- was awarded towards cost. 3. Originally an Application praying for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Harsuklal Harjibhai Pankaniya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant “ State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2004 rendered by the learned Special Judge, First Fast Track Court, Valsad in Special (Corruption) Case No.32 of 2002, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1) (gh) and 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Short facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 The respondent accused was working as an Assistant Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer as a public servant. The complainant is the Manager of one Company namely Hind Polypack Co. and he prepared the map for putting up the construction and same was to be approved. In this connection, the complainant came into the contact of the respondent “ accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused pointed out certain irregularities and was not giving proper reply an...
Tag this Judgment!Aher Khima Manda Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2015
G.B. Shah, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.427 of 1996 has been filed by the appellant-original accused No.1 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4-6-1996 delivered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.73 of 1995 whereby original accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code. 2. Criminal Appeal No.640 of 1996 has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 4-6-1996 delivered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.73 of 1995 acquitting original accused Nos.2 to 6 and convicting and sentencing original accused No.1 under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code. 3. Short facts are that as per the complaint, on 4-1-1995 the complainant Rasilaben and her sister Ramaben were in th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhebarbhai Savjibhai Kapuriya Vs. Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnaga ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2015
Oral Order (1) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the cooption of respondent No.2 as co-opt member of the Dental Faculty of Bhavnagar University. (2) Heard Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Rushabh Shah and Ms.Avani Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Thacker, with Mr. Shivang A. Thacker, learned counsel for respondent No.1 “University, Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Hemang Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Anshin H. Desai, with Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. (3) The main issue involved in this petition pertains to cooption of respondent No.2 as a member of the Dental Faculty of the respondent “University. It appears from the record of the petition that vide Notification dated 12.07.2011, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Aatulbhai Tapubhai Nakum Vs. State of Gujarat, Through Secretary and O ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2015
Oral Order 1. Heard Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Chaniyara, learned advocate for the respondent No.3, and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- 47(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, and to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 05.12.2014 in Appeal No.83/14, confirming the order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 24.09.2014, suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mandal. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the respondent no.2 in Appeal No.83/14, confirming the order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 24.09.2014, suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, M...
Tag this Judgment!Gandhidham Merchntine Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Se ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2015
Oral Order 1. When the matter is called out and taken up for hearing, at the outset, learned AGP has fairly submitted that the issue raised in the petition is already decided by Hon'ble Division Bench vide CAV Judgment dated 3.7.2013 in Special Civil Application No.2113 of 2012. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- 18-a.That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ or order or direction declaring that the circular dated 30.4.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act and null and void abinitio. b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the circular dated 30.4.2011 issued by the respondent No.2. ? 3. Thus, the petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the circular dated 30.4.2015 and prayed that the said circular may be declared ultra vires. 4. Hon'ble Di...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatbhai Jivrajbhai Limbasiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 10.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot in exercise of powers conferred on him under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. 2. The order of detention along with the grounds supplied to the detenue are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has been detained labelling him as a dangerous person as provided under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are also suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority has taken into consideration a case registered with the Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot vide CR No.II57/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1)(1B) A and 27(1) of the Arms Act. The status of the F.I.R. has been shown as pending in the court ?. The subjective satisfac...
Tag this Judgment!Jethalal Amrabhai Khimsuriya Vs. The State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant, accused has challenged judgment and order dated 15.10.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, 8th Fast Track Court, Rajkot, in Special Case No.11 of 1992 whereby he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ?) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is imposed and for offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and ordered to pay fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is imposed. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Joint Director of ACB, Rajkot, received an information that police officers and officers of RTO were illegally taking gratification from truck drivers transporting salt on the pretext of no...
Tag this Judgment!Vasava Umeshbhai Laxmanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Rakesh Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue is apprehending his detention pursuant to FIR being prohibition C.R.No.I-55/2015 with Dediyapada Police Station, Dist. Narmda under Section 66(B), 65(A)(E) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The petitioner has preferred present petition at pre-execution stage to avoid his detention. 3. I take notice of the fact that the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger'. I also take notice of the fact that the detaining authority has relied upon one case registered with the Dediyapada Police Station, Dist. Narmada vide C.R. No.I-55/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 66(B), 65(A)(E) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 4. Section 2(b) of the PASA Act defines the term 'bootlegger', which reads as under: S.2(b) "bootlegger" means a person who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›