Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print LPA/2491/20105/5 INTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADLETTERSPATENT APPEAL No. 2491 of 2010InSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8096 of 2010WithCIVILAPPLICATION No. 12863 of 2010InLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2491 of 2010ForApproval and Signature: HONOURABLETHE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA=========================================================1WhetherReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2To bereferred to the Reporter or not ?3Whetherthe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print LPA/366/20113/3ORDERINTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADLETTERSPATENT APPEAL No. 366 of 2011InSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 669 of 2011WithLETTERSPATENT APPEAL No. 367 of 2011InSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 670 of 2011=========================================================GHANSHYAMBHAICHANDUBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)VersusHEIROF PATEL BIHARIBHAI DAHYABHAI - Respondent(s)=========================================================Appearance :MRMEHUL S SHAH forAppellant(s) : 1 - 2.MR SURESH M SHA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print LPA/2645/20105/5ORDERINTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADLETTERSPATENT APPEAL No. 2645 of 2010InSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10771 of 2010WithCIVILAPPLICATION No. 13770 of 2010InLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2645 of 2010WithCIVILAPPLICATION No. 16894 of 2010InLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2645 of 2010=========================================================GOVAVELJI & 2 - Appellant(s)VersusPANCHABHAIGOKALBHAI & 1 - Respondent(s)=========================================================Appeara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of two convicts for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 9th February, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Surat in Sessions Case No.222 of 2005. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.2000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years, and a fine of Rs.1000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: (K.S. Jhaveri, J.) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.33 of 2007 dated 23.12.2009, whereby, the original accused-respondent herein, has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part-I of the Indian Penal Code (for short, œthe IPC?) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the original accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The original accused has been given the benefit of set off and has been acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the IPC and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. A complaint was filed by the complainant-Harunbhai Husainbhai, inter alia alleging that he had three brothers namely Kasambhai, Yusufbhai-deceased and Habibbhai. It is alleged that the appellant herein and his parents were living beside th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgement and order dated 30.12.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1998. The appellants “ original accused were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 323 and 504 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as sections 37(1) and 135 of B.P. Act. 1.1 The appellants were ordered to undergo the following sentence : (i) Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one year for offence under section 302 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code; (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for three months for offence under section 324 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code; (iii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for offence under section 323 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code; (iv) Rigorous imprisonment f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj290; (1962)0GLR833
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These two Revision Applications arise out of a peculiar application made by the complainant and a still more peculiar order made by the learned Magistrate on such applications. The accused was charged for the offence of defamation to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad. It is not necessary to set out the facts leading upto the filing of the complaint against the accused; but it is sufficient to state that the complaint was filed against the accused on the ground that at a meeting which was held by the Commissioner, the accused used a word derogatory of the complainant. The case was fixed for hearing on 16th November 1960 and on that date the evidence of the complainant commenced. After the examination-in-chief of the complainant was concluded, the advocate of the accused who is the petitioner before me in Revision Application no. 256 of 1961 started the cross-examination of the complainant. In the course of the cross-examina-tion, the advo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1551
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. One 'Action Group' has filed the present petition by way of Public Interest Litigation through its Convener Mr. Dinkar Mehta. By way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner has prayed various reliefs such as, directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to appoint an Administrator; to take charge of the respondent No. 4-Bank; to direct the Reserve Bank of India to take appropriate proceedings under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1934; to cancel the Board of Directors presently functioning of the respondent No. 4-Bank, and to appoint Administrator for the purpose of managing the affairs of the respondent No. 4-Co-operative Bank. 2. The petition was moved during vacation and the learned Vacation Judge has issued notice to the respondents. 3. The respondents have appeared in the matter and on behalf of respondents 4 to 7, respondent No, 7, who is the Manager of the respondent No. 4-Bank, has filed affidavit-in-reply, which is at page 131 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1762
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The order dated October 18, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Vanthli, below application Exh. 71 in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1985 is the subject-matter of challenge in the present revision application which is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed that two witnesses, namely, (1) the original owner of the property Shri Liladhar Hansraj, and (2) Talati-cum-Mantri of Shapur village be examined as Court witnesses.2. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Judge has felt it necessary to examine the two witnesses as Court witnesses in order to find out the fact as to whether the Naveli exists at the disputed place as there is no reference to the existence of Naveli in one of the Sanads produced by the parties for the buildings respectively owned by them.3. The submission that the order has been passed without jurisdiction has no substance. Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code ...
Tag this Judgment!