Court : Gujarat
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with the FIR, bearing I-C.R. No.198 of 1997, registered with Dani Limda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections-302, 120(B), 201, 202 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section-135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and Sections-25(1)(A) and (B) of the Arms Act. The complaint was filed on 23.11.1997. The petitioner, however, could be arrested only on 28.07.2010. The petitioner, therefore, remained absconding for a period of about 13 years.2. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be expected to come back to face the trial, if released on bail. Only on this ground, I am not inclined to accept the request of the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other accused have been acquitted by the trial Court and such acquittals have been upheld by the High Court. 4. This is, however, an entirely different aspect of the matter. Since, in the cases of the other accused persons, the decisions have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant consumer against the interim order passed by the learned Singe Judge on the ground that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable as appeal lies against the order of the State Consumer Forum before the National Consumer Forum, New Delhi.2. In reply, the learned counsel for the service provider submits that in similar matter one of the consumers moved before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi. In Revision Petition No.1703 of 2010, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by order dated 21.05.2010 relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofGeneral Manager Telecom vs. M. Krishnan, reported in 2009(8) SCC 481, refused to entertain such revision as, by the Supreme Court judgment it was held that, any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.3. The questions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Patan, in Sessions Case No.47 of 2003, convicting appellant-Mukeshbhai Khemabhai Nai-original accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 120(B), 452, 506(2) of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and original accused No.2-Babubhai Lallubhai Patel-, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2006, for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120(B) of IPC. Original accused No.1-Mukeshbhai Khemabhai Nai has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2005, whereas accused No.2- Babubai Lallubhai Patel has preferred Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively in this judgment.2. Accused No.1 was punished as under:-(1) For offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, SI for 6 months;(2) For offence punishable under Section 120(B) of IP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The petitioner/original plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Misc. Appeal No.75/1996 on 19^th April 1997, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned 1^st Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Surendranagar below an application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.151/1994 on 30^th September 1995.2. Mr.Ashwin Bhatt, the learned advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the petitioner. He is, however, not present when the matter is called out on two different occasions. Mr.Anuj Trivedi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent is present. He has submitted that in view of the amendment in Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Revision Application is not maintainable.3. Considering the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, the Court is of the view that the present Civil Revision Application is filed against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The petitioner original judgment debtor has filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Mehsana below an application Ex.52 in Special Darkhast No.34 of 1991 whereby the said application was rejected.2. This Court has issued notice on 27.12.2002 and, thereafter, Civil Revision Application was admitted and rule was issued on 11.3.2003.3. Heard Mr. R.C.Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Mr.P.G.Desai, learned advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent Bank.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent Bank and for the said purpose, the goods worth Rs.6 lacs were placed under pledge/hypothecation with the Bank. Since the decree was passed against the petitioner, the petitioner had requested to the respondent Bank to recover the dues by selling the goods which are under possession of the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Since common issue is involved in these Civil Revision applications, the same are heard and being disposed of together by this common judgment and order.2. Civil Revision Application No.193 of 2002 is filed by the applicant / original decree holder challenging the impugned order passed by the Executing Court on 05/05/2000 whereby the Execution Petition being Special Darkhast No.5 of 1984 was dismissed.3. Similarly, Civil Revision Application No.194 of 2002 is filed by the applicant / original decree holder challenging the impugned order dated 05/05/2000 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Petition being Special Darkhast No.6 of 1984, whereby the said petition was dismissed.4. Civil Revision Applications No.193 and 1994 of 2002 were admitted and Rule was issued on 03/12/2003.5. Heard Mr.B P Dalal, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr.Vimal Patel, learned Advocate for the opponent.6. The short point involved in these Civil Revision Applications, is that a compromise decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application No.1016/10, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed for payment of last wages drawn by way of compliance to section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. We have heard Mr.Soni for Mr.Shah for the appellant.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Market Committee after the application received of the workman on 01.12.2009 had orally conveyed for joining the duty and written communication was also addressed on 25.03.2010. It has been further submitted that the Market Committee is ready to reinstate the workman as per the order passed by this Court in the main Special Civil Application. However, the workman did not join the duty. The learned counsel fairly conceded that the aforesaid part of the defence was not placed before the learned Single Judge when the hearing of the Civil Application had taken place and the order was pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 29/7/2010 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8295 of 1999, whereby the petition has been allowed by setting aside the award qua back wages and has been dismissed qua reinstatement of the workmen concerned respondents herein.2. Heard Mr. PV Hathi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. MH Rathod, Ld. Counsel appearing on advance copy for the respondents.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Ld. Single Judge ought not to have confirmed the reinstatement since the respondents workmen were working as daily wagers. It was submitted that the procedure for retrenchment compensation was followed to the extent that the workmen were informed to collect the retrenchment compensation and, therefore, it was not the case where there was no compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. He submitted that, therefore, the view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The appellant-assesses has challenged order dated 20^th November, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Excise Appeal No.416 of 2007, whereby the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 ["the Act"], proposing the following thirteen questions stated to be substantial questions of law arising out of the impugned order of the Tribunal:"[I] Whether the appellate Tribunal was justified in imposing pre-deposit condition in a matter which arises out of remand proceedings when on earlier occasion in the same proceedings, the appeal was entertained without pre-deposit condition?[II] Whether the pre-deposit condition is without looking to the facts of the case and earlier orders of Appeal proceedings are considered by the Appellate Tribunal?[III] Whether Tribunal was justified in imposing pre-deposit condition in remand proceedings?[IV] When de-novo proceedings was ordered and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The State of Gujarat through its officer has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7.2.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 1253 of 1990 as well as order passed by the Court on 23.3.2007 and 26.6.2007 and in the alternative, prayed that the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration and during the pendency of this proceedings, recovery application being Recovery Application No. 68 of 2007 be stayed.2. This Court (Coram: K.A. Puj, J.) on 6.12.2010 passed order regarding gross delay and lack of interest on the part of concerned officers in not taking appropriate steps. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit giving names of concerned Range Forest Officers, who were in charge during that relevant point of time and also proper explanation as to why no timely action were taken by them and for this purpose, the matter was adjourned to 20.12.2010. Th...
Tag this Judgment!