Gujarat Court January 2009 Judgments
Unilever Plc and anr. Vs. Vesco Laboratories and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Guj8
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. Admit. Shri Umesh A. Trivedi, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents-original defendants. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal from order is taken up for final hearing today.2. Present appeal from order under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellants-original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') challenging the order passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court at Ahmedabad dated 17.10.2008 passed below Exh.25 in Civil Suit No. 2058 of 2008 by which the learned Chamber Judge has allowed the said application submitted by the original defendant No. 1 by disposing of the said suit on the ground that the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought in the said suit and thereby returning the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation before the appropriate court having the jurisdiction, in...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Informatics Ltd. Vs. Creative Infocity Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1281
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today.3. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original defendant has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar dated 22-12-2008 insofar as directing the parties to the suit to maintain status quo position with respect to the disputed property for a further period of 45 days, While allowing application Exh. 17 submitted by the petitioner-defendant directing the parties to the suit to go for arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the concession agreement.4. That the concession agreement was executed between the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Creative Infocity Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Informatics Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1877
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. B.H. Chhatrapati, learned Advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.3. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original plaintiff named Creative Infocity Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the petitioner' for convenience) has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22-12-2008 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar below application Exh. 17 in Regular Civil Suit No. 427 of 2008, by which, the learned trial Court has allowed the said application Exh. 17 submitted by the respondent - original defendant named the Gujarat Informatics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' for short) under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliati...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Kapilbhai Mukundrai Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1210
M.D. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 411 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act at the instance of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenging the judgment and order dated 23-4-2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad in M.V. Appeal No. 98 of 2006 holding the appeal premises as non-commercial for the purposes of assessment of tax and directing them to issue fresh bill considering the appeal premises as non-commercial.2. Short facts are that the premises situated in Ward TPS-3 Gujarat College bearing S. No. 533 and tenement No. 0512-05-0376-001H was owned by the present respondent-original claimant. He was using the same as a lawyers office. In respect of this premises, the appellant-Corporation issued tax bill demand notice bearing No. 1041 for the years 2001 to 2007 treating it as a commercial premises. The present respondent-original claimant filed appeal being Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 98 of 2006 before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Laljibhai Ramjibhai Hamirani Vs. Lavjibhai Haribhai Mandanka and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)1GLR879
ORDERShri Nilesh Pandya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has requested to extend the statement made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, which is objected by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.In the facts and circumstances of the case, when it is specifically held by this Court that the suit is not maintainable, there is no question of extending the statement. Hence, the prayer of the appellant to extend the statement made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rudabhai Gigabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ213Guj
1. In this petition, the petitioner, Gujarat Agricultural University, has challenged award dated November 26, 1999 passed by Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCD) No. 25/1990 (Old Reference (LCD) No. 70/87) whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner-university to treat the concerned persons as 'permanent workman' by conferring status of 'permanancy' to the persons concerned in the Reference with retrospective effect i.e. from August, 1987. The Labour Court has also directed the petitioner-University to grant notional benefit of increase or in revision in wages for the period from August 1, 1987 to December 31, 1995 and to fix the pay of the concerned workman accordingly. By the award impugned in present petition, the Labour Court has also directed the petitioner to pay, after-carrying out the aforesaid exercise of notional fixation of salary, arrears with effect from January 1, 1996.2. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that originally when the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)502; 2009[14]STR146; [2009]21STT111; (2009)25VST319(Guj)
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 3-8-2007 made by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by proposing the following two questions:I. Whether or not, in Service Tax, the taxable event is realization of payment for taxable services rendered and not the time of rendering of the taxable service?II. Whether or not, at the time of realization of payment for the taxable service provided, the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) had come into force, making the service receiver liable for payment of service tax in respect of taxable services provided by a non-resident or a person who is from outside India and who does not have any office/establishment in India?2. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. It was submitted that the impugned order dated 3-8-2007 made by CESTAT overlooks the fact that by virtue of amendment of relevant Rule of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (the Rules) the liability to pay Service Tax has been shifted to the recipient...
Tag this Judgment!Nilesh Purshottambhai Bhanderi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR997
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. All the three Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Revision Application arise out of a judgment and order rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Anand [hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. Trial Judge'] dated 8/2/2000 in Sessions Case 268 of 1998. The Ld. Trial Judge recorded the conviction of original accused No. 1-Nileshkumar Parshotambhai for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the DP Act']. He came to be acquitted so far as the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. The original accused No. 1 was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for 6 months for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 mont...
Tag this Judgment!Manor Investment Company Limited Vs. Haribhai Dahyabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ89Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. The petitioner, a limited company has challenged award dated November 13, 1998 passed by the learned Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 202/1992, thereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the said Reference and directed the petitioner Company to reinstate the respondent workman and to pay 75% of backwages.2. At the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that at or around the time when present petition was filed, a company petition praying for winding up of the Company was pending in the Court and subsequently the said company petition came to be admitted. This Court is informed during the hearing of present petition that Official Liquidator attached to] Gujarat High Court has been put in possession of the assets of the Company and the proceedings of the company petition and collateral company applications are pending in this Court.3. So far as the facts involved in present petition are concerned, it comes out from the record that the respondent herein ...
Tag this Judgment!Talod Gruh Udhyog Vs. Bahuchar Gruh Udhyog
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)1GLR452
M.R. Shah, J.1. The grievance which is voiced in the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is that in spite of the suit filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff as far back as in the month of September, 2008 along with an application for interim injunction restraining the present respondent-original defendant, agents, servants, stockists and/or distributors from manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in any manner whatsoever in goods sold under the trade mark, which is identical and deceptively similar to the petitioner's-original plaintiffs trade mark so as to infringe the petitioner's-original plaintiff's registered trade mark, the learned trial Court is not deciding and disposing of the application, Exh. 5 and the ultimate sufferer is the petitioner-original plaintiff.2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner-original plaintiff that in spite of the registered trade mark 'Talod' in favour of the petitioner-or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »