Gujarat Court September 1999 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.
Swami Satyaprakashdasji Gurughanshyam Prasad Swami Vs. Jt. Charity Com ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR498
M.R. Calla, J.1. All these four petitions are in relation to the Board of Trustees of Swaminarayan Sect, Gadhada Shri Gopinathji Dev Mandir Trust and its subordinate Temple Trusts. The controversy hinges around the entries to be made in the Register of Trustees based on the election of the Trustees and the various orders passed in this regard from time to time in more than one proceedings and such controversy is based on identical facts involving common questions and the disputes raised which are inter connected and therefore, I propose to decide all these four petitions by this common judgment and order.2. The Swaminarayan Temple Trust, Gadhada is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 bearing Regn.No. A-245, Bhavnagar, hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'.-- The elections for the Trustees of this Trust were held on 14th December 1997 and the result thereof was declared on 15th December 1997.-- On 19th December 1997, a Regular Civil Suit No. 126 of 1997 was file...
State of Gujarat Vs. Sankalchand P. Vachheta Since Deceased Through Hi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR235
M.R. Calla, J. 1. All these 30 Civil Applications filed in respective Letters Patent Appeals have been moved on behalf of State of Gujarat, Revenue Department and the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector (ULC) seeking condonation of delay in concerned Letters Patent Appeals. Whereas common questions based on identical facts are involved, we propose to decide this group of 30 Civil Applications by this common judgment and order as under:-2. Since Civil Application No.7393/2000 in Letters Patent Appeal St.No.96/2000 arising out of Special Civil Application No.539/93 and the common order dated 10.9.99 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1503/99 in Special Civil Application No.539/93 have been argued as the main and leading case, we may give preference to the facts of this particular case for the purpose of passing this order as was agreed by the parties. Special Civil Application No.539/93 filed by one Sankalchand P. Vachheta and pursued by his legal representatives on his expiry, wa...
Hargovindbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs. Prabhudas Raichand Sanghani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR51
ORDERM.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application has been filed against the order Annexure.A passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. 3 of 1997 on 28th May 1997 whereby the appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed against the order dated 26th February 1997 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara in Application No. 51/7/93 and with prayer to grant permission to the petitioners for instituting Suit as per draft plaint with such modification as may be required owing to passage of time.2. The petitioners have come with the case that an application under Sec. 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 read with Rule 27 of the Rules made thereunder was filed by the petitioners before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara seeking permission to institute Civil Suit in the Court of District Judge, at Navsari. This application was rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 26th February 1997. Aggrieved from this order dated 26th February 1997, the petitioner...
Shree Ravidarshan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Prafullakum ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1639
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The prayer of the petitioners in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 30-9-1989 Annexure-B passed by the Collector, Surat, in Suo Motu Case No. 64 of 1989 and revisional order dated 23-3-1995. Annexure-A passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under:The petitioner-Society is a registered society under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. One Bhagabhai Nathabhai was a debtor of the creditor-society to the tune of Rs. 264.85 ps. for which Mohanbhai Vithalbhai, owner of the land was guarantor. For recovery of the said debt of the creditor-society, the Special Recovery Officer, Surat, held public auction on 14-4-1981 in which the petitioner-society was the highest bidder at Rs. 1,80,000/-. Vide order dated 18-5-1981 the Special Recovery Officer, Surat, accepted the highest bid of the petitioner and confirmed the sa...
Maganlal Chimnaji Vs. Prajapati Samiji Himatji, Decd Thro: His Heris a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR336
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act at the instance of the original defendant-tenant.2. The respondent-landlord as plaintiff sued the defendant-tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act for a decree of eviction on a number of grounds, inter alia that the tenant had made permanent alteration in the premises let out to him, that the tenant had illegally sublet the premises in question, and that the tenant was in arrears of rent for 6 months and more.3. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the suit on the first two grounds, found that the case of the landlord was covered under section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, that the landlord-plaintiff had proved that the tenant was in arrears of rent for 6 months, and that he had not been reasonably regular in depositing the rent and had furthermore not deposited the amount then due and payable on the date of the first hearing of the suit (the date of framing of ...
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1239
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner herein claims to be a Company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Pharmaceuticals and medicinal preparations since 1995. The petitioner-Company claims to be working in the name and style of M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. The petitioner has come with the case that an application for registration under No. 488075 was made by the petitioner's predecessor-in-title of the mark of M/s. Cadila Laboratories Ltd., Ghodasar, Ahmedabad. This M/s. Cadila Laboratories Ltd. was amalgamated with the petitioner-Company in terms of the order passed by this Court on 2-5-1997 and the petitioner now claims to be the proprietor of the Trade Mark in the aforesaid application for registration. The petitioner alleges that the respondent No. 3-Company namely, M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. gave a notice of intention to oppose the registration of the Trade Mark 'CONAZOLE' as applied for by the petitioner's predecessor-in-title of the Trade...
Gujarat Electromelt Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(72)ECC566; (2000)1GLR191
B.C. Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate waives service of rule. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal today.2. For three different periods, three different show cause notices were issued which were culminated into the order at Annexure 'C' whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Division II, Central Excise, Mehsana, confirmed the demand of Rs.15,55,554/- raised vide show cause notice mentioned in the order and imposed a penalty of Rs.15,55,554/- under third proviso to sub-Rule 3 of Rules 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner also assessed the assessee to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the amount outstanding for the period from due date till the actual payment of the sum as confirmed under Section 96 ZO (3) of the Act. The said order was challenged by three different appeals and stay applications were also preferred. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Ahme...
Gujarat Leather Industries Ltd. Vs. Mahendrakumar Pawar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR487; (2001)IIILLJ403Guj
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the legality of the award dated January 30, 1999 rendered by the Labour Court, Bharuch, directing the petitioner to reinstate three respondents to their original post with 60 percent back wages and continuity of service together with Rs. 300/- as cost and has prayed that the said award be quashed being illegal.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under:3. The petitioner is a registered Company. The respondents were employed by the petitioner in May, 1980 as machine operators. They were members of the Trade Union. Allegations of serious misconduct were made against the respondents. Show-cause notice was given to them on November 3, 1982 under the applicable Standing Orders. The incident occurred on October 21, 1982 between 8.05 a.m. and 8.40 a.m. Explanation of the respondents was not satisfactory hence charge-sheets were served on them. Domestic enquiry was conducted. Pending enquiry the re...
Alaukik Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Vs. C.R. Iyer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR495
Kundan Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17-8-1994 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara below Exhs. 77, 78, 79, 83 and 85 in Special Civil Suit No. 675 of 1990 whereby Exh. 77 and 79 to relieve the respondent's advocate were rejected and the defendants/petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 4.77 lacs towards fees with costs of Rs. 50,000/- in the Court on or before 31-8-1994. 2. One Gaekwad Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. filed Special Civil Suit No. 675 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara. The petitioners were the defendants in that suit and they have engaged local Sr. Advocate Mr. N.H. Bhatt. Petitioners no.3 and 4 also engaged the respondent as their advocate only for attending the application exh. 5 filed in the suit as regards the points arise under the Companies Act and the respondent filed his vakalatnama in the said suit on 2-4-1992. However, on account of difference of opinion between the petitio...
Maheshchandra K. Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR701
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr.Pardiwala, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Anandjiwala, for the revisioner. Rule. Mr.B.Y.Mankad, learned APP waives service of rule for respondent State.2. This a Revision Application filed by the aggrieved accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioner, he had applied for production of document under Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and according to him, production prayed for the documents were relevant to the case of prosecution and also to his defence. To have effective and pinpointed cross examination, documents were important and the Court has jurisdiction to issue summons to a witness for the purpose under Section 91 of CrPC.3. While issuing notice, this Court has granted interim relief in terms of Para-6(D) till further orders vide order dated 28th July, 1999 so it can legitimately be inferred that the trial of Special Case No : 15/1986, which is fairly an old matter, is stayed. Hence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »