Gujarat Court December 2008 Judgments
O.L. of Trimline Health and Resort Ltd. Vs. Gsfc and 4
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-2008
Reported in: [2010]154CompCas480(Guj); [2009]92SCL323(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. OLR No. 107 of 2007 is filed by the Official Liquidator seeking direction to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 i.e., Mrs. Dolly Neel Chokshi and Shri Neel Bhupendrabhai Chokshi as well as Anyonya Co-operative Bank Limited to place before the Court the documentary evidence of ownership over the property of the Company's registered office situated at 79, Vishwas Colony, Opp. Alkapuri Shopping Centre. The Official Liquidator has also sought for the direction to the respondent No. 5 i.e., M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Corporation to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the resort property situated at Akshar Chowk, Munj Mahuvad, Old Padra Road, Vadodara to the Official Liquidator, treating the said transaction as void against the Official Liquidator in terms of Section 531A of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Company Application No. 414 of 2008 is filed by M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Corporation seeking confirmation of sale by M/s. Trimline Health and Resort Limited (in Liquidation) of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay C. Patel and ors. Vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR664
ORDER DATED 29-12-2008:The request for staying the order has been made on behalf of the respondents. This request is strongly objected by the Counsel for the workmen, as despite there was repeated orders passed by various authorities on various occasions, the respondents-employer has not paid any heed to hold the inquiry. In view of this, the request for staying the order cannot be granted. Hence, it is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Kishorkumar Prabhudas Tanna and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR683; (2009)23VST298(Guj)
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. This group of petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the prayers, inter alia, that a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to make the earlier exemption granted to the petitioners by the certificates issued by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 available to the petitioners for the purpose of exemption under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 at least for the duration as mentioned in the aforesaid certificate (passed under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969), if not for more time.2. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant exemption to the industry of the petitioners under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 from the date of coming into force of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the same terms as exemption has been granted earlier under the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Bishandayal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1762
C.K. Buch, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 22-2-1999 delivered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1994 confirming the judgment and order dated 18th October, 1994 delivered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 31 of 1989.2. Heard Ms. Benajir appearing for Mr. A.S. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. L. Jani, learned A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1 State. Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (original-complainant) is absent when the matter is called out.3. Earlier, when this matter was listed, submissions in part were made by Ms. Benajir. However, she had sought time to cite decisions to convince the Court that the petitioner could not have been held guilty for committing offence of selling misbranded food article or adulterated food article. I have h...
Tag this Judgment!Popatji Babaji Thakor and ors. Vs. Manubhai Chimanlal Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj123
ORDERK.A. Puj, J.1. The appellants--ori. defendants Nos. 5 to 10 have filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsanaon 15-3-2007 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2005 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana has allowed the Appeal filed by the ori. plaintiff and passed a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs.2. It is the case of the original defendants Nos. 5 to 10 that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a Suit for specific performance in respect of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the defendants Nos. 5 to 10 in favour of the ori. defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and also asked for a specific performance in respect of an agreement to sell executed by original defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs. Both the agreements were entered into in respect of the new tenure land and hence the specific performance of agreement to ...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai Bhikhabhai Valand Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1275
ORDERZ.K. Saiyed, J.1. The applicant - original complainant has filed this Application under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') inter-alia praying to quash and set aside the order dated 22.01.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3204 of 2007 and cancel the bail of respondent No. 2 - original accused in M. Case No. 17 of 2007 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, on the ground that the respondent No. 2 - accused has breached the conditions which were imposed in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions , Judge while granting the bail to the respondent No. 2.2. Heard Mr. B.C. Rupera, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - State and Mr. P.R. Nanavati learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - original accused.3. Mr. Rupera has contended that while granting the bail to th...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaygauri Wd/O. Vishnuprasad Nathalal Bhatt and ors. Vs. State of Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR952
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred challenging the action of respondent competent authority as confirmed by the Urban Land Tribunal under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act).2. The facts which are not in dispute are that one deceased Vishnuprasad Nathalal Bhatt filed Form No. 1 as required under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act on 13-8-1976. Though, the said statement was relatable to 12 different properties, the dispute for the present is only in relation to land bearing Survey No. 692/1, admeasuring 6880 sq.mtrs. of Naroda Taluka City District Ahmedabad. The competent authority forwarded draft statement with notice under Section 8(3) of the Act to deceased Vishnuprasad Nathalal Bhatt and objections thereof were filed on 3-12-1992. After hearing the said gentleman, the competent authority made an order under Section 8(4) of the Act on 27-1-1988 declaring the land admeasuring 6649 sq. mtrs. of land as excess vacant land....
Tag this Judgment!Kanaiyalal Chandulal Ganeshwala Vs. Zubedabibi D/O. Gulam Ahmad Deceas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1067
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common question of law and fact arise in these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application No. 12327 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hansoth dated 2-8-2008 below Exh. 73 in Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 2005 in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-original plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the prayer of possession with respect to the disputed land in question.2.1. Special Civil Application No. 12328 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hansoth dated 2-8-2008 below Exh. 67 in Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 2006 in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-original plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the prayer of possession with res...
Tag this Judgment!Dahyabhai Revabhai Chamar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR790
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the instant appeals have arisen from the same judgment and order delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, on 29-7-2000, in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1998.2. In all, eight accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2), 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, when the charge was framed, out of eight accused, accused No. 5-Kacharabhai Revabhai Chamar died and remaining seven accused faced the trial.3. Vide judgment and order impugned, learned trial Judge was pleased to convict the accused No. 1-Dahyabhai Revabhai Chamar, accused No. 2-Amrutbhai Revabhai Chamar and accused No. 3-Natvarbhai Revabhai Chamar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and each of these accused came to be convicted and sentenced by the trial Judge for imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default,...
Tag this Judgment!Atulbhai Patel Director, Baroda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR623
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 26-9-2008 of the learned single Judge, dismissing the Special Civil Application following the decision dated 4/6-9-2008 of another learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1870 of 2006 and allied matters. Since, the L.P.A. filed against the said decision dated 4/6-9-2008 filed earlier has already been withdrawn, this appeal is essentially directed against the reasoning of the learned single Judge in the decision dated 4/6-9-2008, as adopted in the order dated 26-9-2008 under appeal.2. All the above petitions were filed to challenge certain Bye-laws of respondent No. 3-Gujarat State Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. In the decision dated 4/6-9-2008, the learned single Judge held the said Bye-laws to be valid and legal. The appellant is therefore, reiterating his challenge to the said Bye-laws in this appeal.3. The broad facts of the case are not in dispute....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »