Gujarat Court November 2007 Judgments
Vikram Stores and anr. Vs. S.N. Perfumery Works and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj65; (2008)2GLR1255
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 5th November, 2007 below Notice of Motion exhs. 6 and 7 in Civil Suit No. 2175 of 2007 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad, whereby the Notice of Motion filed by the present appellants (original plaintiffs) was rejected and therefore, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have preferred the present Appeal from Order.FACTS2. RANGOLI is a registered trademark of the petitioner (plaintiff), whereas the defendant is using predominantly word RANGILI for sale of same product viz. Essence stick. The present appellants have instituted Civil Suit No. 2175 of 2007 for infringement of copyright, infringement of trade mark and for passing off and to restrain the present respondents (original defendants) from printing, publishing and using the label RANGILI and/or any other label which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' RANGOLI Agarbatti (Essence stick) label. D...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Bhanderi Dhirubhai Narshibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR819]; (2008)2GLR1153; (2008)IILLJ396Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the petitioner.2. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award made by the labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCA) No. 87 of 2001 dated 3.8.2007 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement in favour of the respondent workman with continuity of service with 30% back wages with costs of Rs. 1500.00 to be paid to the respondent workman. 3. Learned Advocate Mrs. Pahwa for the petitioner raised contention before this Court that the services of the respondent were terminated on 30.4.95 and he raised an industrial dispute in the year 2001. As per her submission, no new person was engaged by the petitioner. Labour court has not given reasons in support of its conclusion. Work was not available with the petitioner, therefore, services of the respondent were terminated, thereafter, no fresh recruitment was made by the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Sriprakash Ganpatrai Kejriwal Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC40
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present application has been field by the applicant original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 - original accused herein, being Criminal Case No. 1033 of 2002, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881) (hereinafter shall be referred to as the N.I. Act for short).2. A complaint came to be filed by the respondent No. 2 - original complainant in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat against the applicant - original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, alleging inter-alia that three cheques bearing Nos. 312569, 312568 and 312570, dtd.29/6/2002 were issued by the applicant in favour of the complainant which came to be deposited on 4/7/2002. However, the same came to be dishonoured with an endorsement of Sinsufficie...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Inject Ltd. Vs. Yogesh R. Mankodi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas626(Guj); 2008GLH(1)70
K.A. Puj, J.1. The official liquidator has filed this criminal complaint under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for taking cognizance of default committed by the accused persons under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, and issuance of process against the accused persons for trying and punishing them in accordance with the provisions of law. The official liquidator has also sought for the direction to the accused persons to submit forthwith the statement of affairs before him as on the date of winding up order, i.e., January 20, 2000.2. It is the case of the official liquidator in the complaint that by an order dated January 20, 2000, passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 18 of 1999, the company, namely, M/s. Gujarat Inject Ltd., was ordered to be wound up and he has been appointed as the liquidator of the said company. Accused Nos. 1 to 11 were the directors of the said company as on the relevant date of the winding up order as per the records maintaine...
Tag this Judgment!Mahida Chhatrasing Gulabsing Vs. Mahida Amarsang Mansang and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)213; (2008)1GLR470
K.M. Thaker, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26-12-1995 at Annexure 'A' passed by Deputy Collector in Case No. 85 of 1994 and order dated 30-10-1996 passed in Revision Application preferred by present petitioner.2. Mr. G.C. Ray, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Ms. Patel, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.3. It is the case of the petitioner that by a registered sale-deed, the petitioner had purchased land bearing Survey No. 254/2 admeasuring 0 acre and 13 gunthas situate in the sim of Alarsa from respondent No. 1.3.1. The petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 2, i.e., Shri Harisang Mansang Vaghela had made an application praying for a declaration that the aforesaid transaction may be declared void under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Safal Realty P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas34(Guj); [2010]98SCL39(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. These are the petitions filed by three petitioner companies for sanction of the scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of Deep Infrastructure Private Limited and Safal Infrastructure Private Limited, the transferor companies with Safal Realty Private Limited, the transferee company under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All the petitioner companies belong to the same group of management.2. The transferor companies and the transferee company belong to the same group of management and are engaged in a similar line of commercial activities in the realty sector. Moreover, the business line is similar as well as complementary in nature, hence, the board of directors of all these companies thought it fit to amalgamate them for achieving synergic advantages. It is thought fit to consolidate all the operations under one company. This would lead to benefits of economies of the scale, make administrat...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Education Society and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj42
D.N. Patel, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 6th July,2007 passed by State Chief Information Commissioner in Complaint No. 1429 of 2006-07, whereby the petitioners who were not parties before the said authority, are directed to refund the fees under the Right to Information Act,2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,2005). Against this order, third party has preferred the present petition on the ground that the petitioners were not joined as parties in the proceedings before State Chief Information Commissioner and no opportunity of being heard was given and the direction has been given to the petitioners to refund fees to the original applicant i.e. to the present respondent No. 4, is dehors the provisions of the Act, 2005. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that State Chief Information Commissioner has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Act,2005 especially Section 11 read with Section 7(7) of the Act nor the authorities be...
Tag this Judgment!Barad Pravinsinh Roopsinh Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)153
A.L. Dave, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No. 8166/1999 on 26th March, 2004. The appellant, who was the petitioner in the said petition, was one of the selectees in the select-list prepared by the respondent-authorities on 2nd July, 1992, pursuant to the advertisement dated 28th February, 1991 for 27 posts of Talati-cm-Mantri in Kheda District. The name of the appellant figured at serial No. 20 in the said select-list. The select-list was supposed to remain operative for a period of one year initially. However, the operation period came to be extended till 30th June, 1997. However, as the appellant was not given appointment, he moved the said petition in 1999, seeking following reliefs:(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to exhaust the select list prepared pursuant to the advertisement da...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Shah and 64 ors. Vs. Director of Municipalities and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1450
Jayant Patel, J.1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides the matters are finally heard today. In all the petitions common question arises for consideration they are being considered by this common order. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.05.2007, passed by the Director of Municipality, whereby the resolution of the municipality has been suspended, mainly because the expenses of the establishment exceeded 45 percent of the total revenue of the municipality, and it is further observed that whenever expenses of establishment are up to 45 percent of the revenue, it would be open to the municipality to move proposal for reconferment of the benefits of the fifth pay commission upon the municipal employees.3. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Panchal for the petitioners, Ms. Krina Calla learned AGP for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Sneha A Joshi learned Counsel for the municipality.4. It...
Tag this Judgment!Shraddha Aromatics P. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of Global Arya Indu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: [2009]147CompCas322(Guj); [2009]94SCL288(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant has taken out this judge's summons praying for recalling of the order dated August 30, 2007 passed in O.L.R. No. 143 of 2007 confirming the sale of lot No. A consisting of land, building, plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures and all other movables (except records) at L.S. No. 202/3P, SIDC Main Road, village Veraval (Shapar) taluka Kotdasangani, district Rajkot in favour of Shri Bipin S. Lathia, i.e., respondent No. 2 and to accept and confirm the offer of the applicant for Rs. 151 lakhs or in the alternatively, re-auction the aforesaid properties in the interest of justice. The applicant has also prayed for the direction to the official liquidator not to hand over the possession of the aforesaid property to respondent No. 2 and not to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of respondent No. 2.2. This Court has issued notice on October 30, 2007. At the time of issuance of notice, this Court has observed that only with a view to show its bona ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »