Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Learned APP, Shri D.C.Sejpal, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that previously complaint was lodged for the same incident alleging offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code later on to give more serious dimension to the alleged incident, fresh complaint came to be filed alleging offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code stating that one gold chain was also snatched and taken away. He further submitted that other than the above mentioned incidents, petitioners have no any other criminal antecedents. Counsel further submitted that petitioners would cooperate with the investigation, if granted bail. He further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day after short treatment.3. Under the circumstances, by allowing this application, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with C.R. No.I-295 of 2010 registered with Sola...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Learned APP Shri Shah waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially granted bail by the learned Magistrate on 24.12.2010. Subsequently, however, the Investigating Officer filed a report adding besides others, offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, finding that for such offence, he is not competent to grant bail, without any further procedure, cancelled the bail and directed that the petitioner be taken in custody by the impugned order dated 1.1.2011. Counsel further submitted that though the petitioner was working in SRP, the alleged amount was not entrusted to him in capacity as a Government servant. Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore would not apply. At this stage, it is not necessary for me to make any elaborate observations on the last contention of the counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to say that in the present case, the petitioner is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.12550 of 2009, whereby the petition has been dismissed.2. The relevant facts are that the father of the petitioner was in Panchayat Service had expired on 19.6.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, he was minor and, therefore, could not apply for compassionate appointment. Upon attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment. 3. The said application of the original petitioner came to be rejected vide decision dated 17.3.2008 on two grounds, one was that the application was not made within a period of six months from the death of the deceased employee and the another was that the family pension of Rs.3062/- is available to the dependent members of the family of the deceased employee and terminal benefits are also paid of Rs.3,66,509/-. Under these circumstances, the original petitioner had approa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting-aside the order passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad on 23^rd November 1993, cancelling the N.A. permission granted by the District Development Officer vide his order dated 9^th July 1986.2. This Court has issued notice on 8^th December 1994 and ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(C) of the petition was granted. The ad-interim relief granted was ordered to be continued subject to reserving liberty to the respondent to move appropriate application for vacating the interim relief. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has expired and her heirs and legal representatives are brought on record on 11^th May 2009.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.114, admeasuring 4957 sq.meters situated at village Tarsali, Taluka ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This application has been received through jail. The applicant is an under trial prisoner in connection with offence punishable under Section 25(1(ib)(a) of the Arms Act. He seeks regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. being C.R. No.II-27/2008 registered at Kadi Police Station.2. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the applicant is involved in another offence of dealing in fake currency notes, for which he has already convicted and undergone rigorous imprisonment of ten years.3. With respect to conviction of the petitioner in another case I express no opinion. However, in so far as the present case is concerned, considering the maximum sentence provided under the law and other fact and circumstances of the case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. being C.R. No.II-27 of 2008 registered at Kadi Police Station on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The land belong to one deceased Hiralal Parshottamdas Patel. He applied for permission to sell the land to the appellant. By order dated 13.12.1981, the authorities permitted him to sell the land on two conditions namely, (i) application for use of non-agriculture purpose should be made within 6 months from the date of transfer of land, and (ii) the land should be put to non-agriculture use within 3 years from the date of the order.2. In view of such conditional permission, said deceased Hiralal Parshottamdas Patel sold 35 Gunthas of land in favour of the appellant on 31.5.1982, but no construction was made over the land for years together.3. Under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 provisions have been made to withdraw the permission to sell the property or to cancel the same, if conditions are not fulfilled. Having not fulfilled the conditions, proceedings under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was initiated by notice dated 16.11.198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1.0 Petitioner is a young lady. She has made the following substantial prayer in this petition:"10. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to Direct the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Palanpur, to arrange for the Medical termination of the pregnancy of the Petitioner Herein, and to further make arrangements to preserve the Fetes." This prayer is made in the following factual background:2.0 On 11.10.2010, father of the petitioner filed a complaint before the Deodar Police Station, which is registered as C.R. No. I-149/2010, for the alleged offences punishable under Section-366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-3(1)(x)of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2.1 The complainant had alleged, inter alia, that his daughter aged about 18 years, was kidnapped by one Amratji Agraji Thakore, the original accused. She was taken away in a jeep car, on 28.09.2010, at about 2:00 p.m..2.2 Though, the original accused is, still, absconding, the Investigating Age...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This petition has been filed against the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Gandhinagar in application below Exhibit-15 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2010 dated 18.10.2010, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the 4^th Additional Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in application Exhibit-1 filed in Civil Misc. Application No. 79 of 2009 dated 02.03.2010 was confirmed.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent had filed Summary Suit No. 14/2008 against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.15 lacs, which came to be decreed vide order dated 31.03.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner under Order 37 Rule 4 of the CPC had preferred an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 79/2009 for restoration of the suit in question. Along with the said application, an application for delay condo nation was filed by the petitioner. The learned 4^th Additional Civil Judge, Gandhinagar vide order dated 02.03.2010 rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The petitioner judgment debtor has filed Civil Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order dated 7^th January 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana below an application Exh.22 in Special Darkshat No.39/1996.2. The petition was admitted on 18^th March 2004 and rule was issued.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent filed a suit being Lavad Suit No.133/1990 before the Court of Board of Nominees for recovery of Rs.15,30,578=00 against the petitioner. The said suit came to be decreed by the Court on 12^th June 1996. Against the judgment and order passed by the Court of Board of Nominees on 12^th June 1996, the petitioner had preferred Appeal No.266/1996 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, which came to be dismissed. The respondent thereafter filed execution petition before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana for execution of the decree passed by the Court of Board of Nominees. During the pen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. By way of filing this petition the petitioner - original defendant No.6 has challenged the order dated 8^th April 2010 passed below Exhibit 40 in Special Civil Suit No.198 of 2009 by the learned 10^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat whereby he rejected the said application filed by the petitioner for deleting his name from the array of defendants.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither a party to the agreement nor is an witness to the agreement. He further submitted that the petitioner has not received any consideration pursuant to the agreement.3. He further raised the question of limitation of the suit and submitted that the learned Civil Judge has committed grave error in not granting the application filed by the petitioner by deleting the name of the petitioner.4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.5. The learned Civil Judge in paragraph 3 of the impugned order ha...
Tag this Judgment!