Gujarat Court July 2015 Judgments
Vestabhai Harisingh Vasenia (Bhil) and Another Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Cav Judgment 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Devang J. Joshi for the appellants and Ms. Reeta P. Chandarana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. The appellants have challenged their conviction by impugned judgment and order dated 9.5.2014 in Sessions Case No.168 of 2013 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, whereby, appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC and they have to undergo sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo further one month simple imprisonment. However, they are acquitted for the offences alleged under Sections 394, 395, 397 of the IPC as well as under Section 25(1)(A)(B) of the Arms Act. Whereas, accused nos.1, 3 to 8 and 10 to 11 had been acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Thus, accused no.2 Vestabhai Harisinghbhai Vasenia (Bhil) and accused no.9 Barmalbhai Shehrubhai Kalach (Bhil) are convicted by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Niraj Devnarayan Shukla and Others Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
Cav Judgement: A.J. Desai, J. 1. By CAV judgement dated 12/03/2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Anant S. Dave and Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.B.Shah), following question has been referred to the larger bench for the answer. The question reads as under: Whether law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajubhai Jangubhai Rathwa (supra) and Bhimsingbhai Varjubhai Rathwa and Anr. (supra) is correct law holding that Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. filed by a convict who is absconding at the time of final hearing to be heard on merit by applying law laid down in the case of Dilip S Dahanukar (supra) in the context of interpretation of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. about payment of compensation to victim in a case arising out of Sections 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act holding that Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is a statutory as well as fundamental right affecting liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of...
Tag this Judgment!Win Plast Ltd. Vs. Symphony Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
Oral Judgment: Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present O.J. Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and oder passed in Civil Suit No. 2 of 2015 by this High Court (Coram: S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.) dated 5.5.2015 in a matter under the Designs Act, 2000 regarding the infringement, etc. on the grounds stated in the Memo of the Appeal. 2. It is contended, inter alia, that the interim relief restraining the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 original defendants from marketing, selling, advertising directly and/or indirectly dealing in air cooler on the ground that it is similar to the registered design of the respondent is contrary to law as well as the material on record. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the High Court of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit under sec. 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 read with sec. 20 of the Civil procedure Code, 1908 as it is a composite suit. It has been contended that the learned single Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Perigon Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Petroleum and Natural Gas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-2015
Oral Order: Jayant Patel, J. 1. The petitioners by this petition are seeking appropriate writ to set aside the communication dated 03.07.2015, whereby the respondent has communicated to the petitioners that as single tender is received, it has been decided by the Board to retender the process as per clause 4.4 of the application-cum-bidding document and the petitioners have been advised to collect the papers of the bid. 2. We have heard Mr.Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the condition no.4.4 of the tender providing for the power with the respondent to cancel or to annul the bid is unreasonable because there are unbridled power given to the respondent to invoke condition no.4.4 without assigning any reasons. He further submitted that in past, it has happened that a single tenderer was there. In spite of the same, the decision for retendering was not taken but the offer of the single tenderer has been ac...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Patel Vs. Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-2015
Oral Order: 1. Since the issues arising in the aforesaid two writ applications are same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Both the petitioners were serving with the respondent-Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation. Against both the petitioners, there was a departmental inquiry, which resulted in their exoneration. So far as the petitioner of the Special Civil Application No.3302 of 2008 is concerned, the dispute is with regard to the nonpayment of Gratuity and Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) with interest, and so far as the petitioner of the Special Civil Application No.3303 of 2008 is concerned, the dispute is only with regard to nonpayment of Gratuity with interest. 3. The summary of the two petitions is as under: (i) Special Civil Application No.3302 of 2008: Petitioner was Superintendent Engineer with respondent Corporation has filed petition raising grievance for nonpayment of gratuity and Contributory Provide...
Tag this Judgment!Zala Punjajee Javanjee Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders at Annexure-A whereby the petitioner is held to be disqualified to continue as member of Tapodi Gram Panchayat on the ground that the petitioner has more than two children. 2. It appears that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 2.3.2013 by respondent No.4 “ Taluka Development Officer stating that the petitioner has six children and his last child named Darbar Lakhubha was born on 20.7.2009 on account of which he incurred disqualification under section 32 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ( the Act ?) to continue as member of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice mainly stating that out of six children, 5 children were born out of the wedlock with his first wife named Maniben who died on 30.3.2005 which was prior to the Amending Act, 2005 came into force and, thereafter, only one child was born o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›