Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19027 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 2017

Mahebub Sulemanbhai Sumra vs State Of Gujarat on 26 July, 2021

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Vasantiben Rajeshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 19 August, 2021

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 20 05:13:31 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/6924/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2021 connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Ikbalhusen Mahhammadhusen Malek vs State Of Gujarat on 19 August, 2021

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 20 05:13:19 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/6919/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2021 powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Prafulbhai Sureshbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat on 19 August, 2021

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Purshottamsinh Bachusinh Parihar vs State Of Gujarat on 23 August, 2021

In the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, [2018 (1) GLH 558], it has been held by the coordinate Bench of this Court that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Saiyad Mamadsha Husensha vs State Of Gujarat on 23 August, 2021

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 22:32:39 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/5817/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2021 Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Ulva Galabhai Khimabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 23 August, 2021

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Shravan Kumar Ramdhani Goud vs State Of Gujarat on 23 August, 2021

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Arifbhai @ Munno Valibhai Savat (Savar) vs State Of Gujarat on 23 August, 2021

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 22:30:14 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/3717/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2021 section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next