Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)
Niruben Maheshchandra Kareliya vs State Of Gujarat on 4 December, 2018 cites

Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 25 February, 2014

26. As discussed above, the suo motu exercise of powers is beyond the period of three years. As stated above, in the present case it is after nineteen years, which would not justify exercise of such power. A Page 14 of 16 C/SCA/3273/2016 JUDGMENT useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Another (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 52 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors vs Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors on 2 September, 2009

13. Learned Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch has emphasized regarding the propriety of exercise of such powers beyond a reasonable period contending that it would not justify exercise of such power beyond a reasonable period as observed and laid down in catena of judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (9) SCC 353 in case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors. Referring to the observations made in this judgment including the judgment reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., which in turn has referred to the earlier judgment Page 7 of 16 C/SCA/3273/2016 JUDGMENT of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488 and also referred to the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyer (3rd Edition, 2005) emphasizing that;
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 168 - Full Document

Collector And Ors. Etc vs P. Mangamma And Ors. Etc on 28 February, 2003

13. Learned Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch has emphasized regarding the propriety of exercise of such powers beyond a reasonable period contending that it would not justify exercise of such power beyond a reasonable period as observed and laid down in catena of judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (9) SCC 353 in case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors. Referring to the observations made in this judgment including the judgment reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., which in turn has referred to the earlier judgment Page 7 of 16 C/SCA/3273/2016 JUDGMENT of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488 and also referred to the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyer (3rd Edition, 2005) emphasizing that;
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 78 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Friends Land Development Co. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 21 June, 2006

12. Learned Advocate Shri Hriday Buch submitted that the petitioner Page 6 of 16 C/SCA/3273/2016 JUDGMENT was an agriculturist and if the joint holder Champaben and Tribhovanbhai are not teated as agriculturist even then in view of the judgment of the High Court in case of Friends Land Development Co. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2003 (6) GLR 2599 when the rights are released in favour of the co- owner, there is no breach of statutory provision. Thus the land in question was jointly purchased.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - J Patel - Full Document
1   2 Next