Gujarat Court April 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Ciba Geigy Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1049
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Admit. Mr. A.L. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on caveat for the plaintiffs waives service of the notice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today.2. This appeal is filed against an ex-parte order passed by the Assistant Judge, Baroda on April 3, 1992, granting ad-interim relief in favour of the plaintiffs under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').3. To appreciate the rival contentions of both the parties, few relevant facts may now be stated. The plaintiffs filed a Suit in the District Court, Baroda, being Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1992, for permanent injunction restrainirg the defendant from using in any manner, in relation to pharmaceutical or medicinal preparations, the impugned trade mark CLOFRANIL or any other distantly similar trade mark so as to infringe the trade mark registered in favour of the plaintiff No. 1, bearing No. 233145 ...
Arjunsinh Malaram Vs. State Govt. of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1622
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Can leniency in punishment be shown to an Armed Police Constable found in a drunken unconscious state in breach of the law of prohibition while on duty? This is one of the main questions arising in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order of dismissal from service passed by respondent No. 2 on 8th April, 1982.2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus:The petitioner was at the relevant time working as an Armed Police Constable at Porbandar. On 25th February, 1974 at night he was found unconscious in a drunken state in the shop of one Hardas Maldey. He was supposed to be on duty at that time. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 85(1)(i) and 85(1)(hi) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (the 'Prohibition Act' for brief). He came to be convicted by the Trial Magistrate. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Sessions Court. It...
The Commercial and Ahmedabad Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Guj20
Panchal, J.1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 21A of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948 as well as the legality and validity of the orders dated 7-1-1978, 7-4-1978, 27-4-1978, 11-8-1978, 27-12-1978, 29/30th December, 1978 passed by the Textile Commissioner and the order dated 8th July, 1979 passed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, which have been produced at Annexures E (i), D, E(ii), G. H, I. J and K respectively to the petition, the petitioners have given up the challenge to Clauses 20 and 22 of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948 after the petitioners were permitted to carry out the amendment in the petition.2. It is necessary to refer to certain factual background to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Joshi before us in this petition. The petitione...
Chunilal Chhaganlal Pandya (Decd.) Through His Heirs Manglaben Chunila ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR861
S.D. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order of Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 1253 of 1984 and 1222 of 1984 preferred under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Appeals by judgment dated 20th October, 1987 and has confirmed the order of Competent Authority dated 7th June, 1984.2. In order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned orders, it is necessary to state relevant facts hereunder:I. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, one Chunilal Chhaganlal Pandya (since deceased) filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the said Act before the competent authority specifying the location, extent, value and such other particulars of the vacant lands and all other land with buildings which were held by him and he stated therein the nature of his right vis-a-vis such properties. Under Section 6(4), such statem...
Dhanlaxmiben Liladhar Suchak Vs. Director of Ayurved, Gujarat State an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1082
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The typical bureaucratic stand adopted by and on behalf of the respondents has driven the unfortunate petitioner in this case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances against non-grant of benefits to her flowing from the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3238 of 1979 decided on 2nd February, 1982 (Per B.K. Mehta, J.) setting aside the Government Resolution of 11th January, 1978 at Annexure 'E' to this petition.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner entered the Government Service some time in 1963 as a trained and qualified auxiliary nurse and midwife. By one order passed by respondent No. 1 on 16th June, 1970, she was transferred to the Ayurvedic Hospital at Rajkot as a staff nurse. Its copy is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. Apropos, she resumed her duties in the Ayurvedic Hospital at Rajkot. She served ther...
Kabbur Shivanand Nagappa Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1028
A.N. Divecha, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the decision made by respondent No. 2 herein by means of its communication of 20th June, 1983 holding the petitioner to be age-birred for the purpose of appointment to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Class-1 or of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil) Class-11 in the Gujarat Service of Engineers.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are not in dispute. The petitioner joined Government service as a Supervisor on 1st December, 1970. At the time of institution of this petition he was working as such in the Public Health Department of the State of Gujarat. Respondent No. 2 herein issued one advertisement for making direct recruitment to certain posts in the Gajarat Service of Engineers Class-1 and Class-11. The petitioner applied for both the posts some time in December 1981. The compstitive examination for recruitment to these posts...
Santosh Ramprasad Sharma Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3983
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who is the externee has challenged the order dated 21-8-1991 passed by respondent No. 1 herein under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act and confirmed by respondent No. 2 in appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act.2. The Police Superintendent, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City, issued a notice dated 17-6-1989 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act to the petitioner-detenu, inter alia, alleging in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous and fanatic person and doing his activities by using or violence. There is a specific mention in the notice that the petitioners was doing all these activities with the help of his associates in the vicinity of Manchha-ni Masjid, Potaliya Char Rasta, Bombay Housing and Everest Cinema falling, within the jurisdiction of Shatter Kotda Police Station. The show cause notice also mentioned specifically that all these activities in the above said locality are being done by the petitioner since December 1988.3. On...
Vijaysinh Amarsinh and Co. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)1GLR639
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This appeal is filed against an order below Exh. 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1988 passed by the Second Jt. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamnagar on March 12, 1992.2. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who was given a contract by Hindustan Zinc Limited, first respondent (Ori. Defendant No. 1) for construction of 'Besunda Dam' situated in Udaipur District of Rajasthan State after inviting tenders from general public. The plaintiffs tender was accepted and the contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The contract was for Rs. 2.49 crores. As per the condition of contract, 10% of the tender amount was agreed to be given by way of Bank guarantee and accordingly the plaintiff gave Bank guarantee of Rs. 25 lacs on March 17, 1987 of the defendant No. 2-Bank. It is the case of the plaintiff that the contract was in the two parts and the work was to be completed in two stages. So far as the first stage was concerned, it was a subst...
Natvarsinh Ramsinh Rathod and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1036
S.B. Majmudar, Acting C.J.1. In this group petitions, common questions are involved and hence they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in these petitions are carrying on passenger transport business. For that purpose, they run tourist vehicles. These tourist vehicles are registered with the transport authorities of outside State like Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Hiveli and others. According to the petitioners, they have paid tax to these States and territories where their vehicles are registered. All these vehicles are covered by permits granted under Section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Under that provision, the State Transport Authority may, for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant permits valid for the whole for any part of India, in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf. Armed with these permits, the petitioners bring their ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›