Gujarat Court April 2009 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.
In Re: Nirmay Properties P. Ltd. Vs.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas538(Guj); [2010]97SCL207(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. These are the petitions filed by the petitioner-companies for sanction of a scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of five transferor companies, viz., Nirmay Properties P. Ltd., Shreya Realities P. Ltd., Pulkit Developers P. Ltd., Ankita Builders P. Ltd., and Rishabh Infrastructure P. Ltd., with Sterling Addlife India Ltd., the transferee company under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. All the petitioner-companies belong to the same group of management and all the transferor companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the transferee company. 2. It has been submitted that vide orders dated May 15, 2008, passed in Company Applications Nos. 343, 344, 345, 346 and 347 of 2008, meetings of the equity shareholders and unsecured creditors of the transferor companies were dispensed with in view of the written consent letters placed on record. There were no secured creditors of these companies. Whereas vide order passed on May 15, 2008, i...
State of Gujarat Vs. Koli (Makwana) Chhaganbhai Laxmanbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3557; (2009)2GLR1605
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. The present confirmation case is filed by the State for confirmation of the capital punishment awarded by the impugned judgment and order dated 18-10-2007 passed by the learned Jt. District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2005 convicting the original accused (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2008) for the alleged offence under Sections 363, 376, 392, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarding death sentence to the accused for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. subject to confirmation by the High Court of Gujarat. The appellant-original accused has also preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2008, against the impugned judgment and order under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code challenging the conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2007 for the alleged offence on the grounds set out in detail in the Memo of Appeal, inter alia, that the learned...
industrial Finance Corporation of India Vs. Parekh Platinum Ltd. and 1 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Guj35
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question that is posed for consideration of this Court is whether notice issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act') would lose its efficacy, if the secured creditor commits delay in taking recourse to Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, as soon as, the borrower fails to discharge his liability, in full within the period specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act?2. Learned Single Judge (Coram: D.A. Mehta, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 12426 of 2007 took the view in the facts and circumstances of that case, that action under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act should be initiated within a reasonable period from the date of objection/representation under Sub-section (3-A) of Section 13 of the Act and that delay of more than two years in initiating steps under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act would vi...
Mahesh Govindbhai Barot and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3535; (2009)2GLR1418
A.L. Dave, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order rendered by the learned Fast Track Judge, Court No. 5, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, on 13-10-2006 in Sessions Case No. 234 of 2005.2. The appellants were accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial Court. They came to be tried along with 4 other accused, namely, Godavariben Maneklal, Vidyaben Nandkishor, Amrutbhai Vithhalbhai Patel and Manubhai Nathaji, original-accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively, for offences punishable under Sections 304A, 313, 314, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C).3. As per the prosecution case, appellant original accused No. 1 was married to Ashaben somewhere in 1997. Appellant No. 2 is mother of appellant No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had a strong desire for a male child through deceased Ashaben. She then conceived, later they came to know that foetus was that of a female child, and therefore, they have resorted to witchcraft, and ultimatel...
Bharat Dyestuff Corporation and ors. Vs. Chandrakant Jaykishandas Khar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2311
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present Appeal From Order, under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is preferred by the appellants herein-original decree holder and the original judgment debtors to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat dated 1-11-2006 below Exh. 75 in Special Darkhast No. 33 of 2000 by which the learned Executing Court has accepted the objections submitted by the third party and set aside the sale/auction proceedings.2. This case has a chequered history. Few facts necessary for the determination of the present Appeal From Order in nutshell are as under:3. The appellant No. 1 herein-Bharat Dyestuff Corporation, through its sole proprietor Shri Ishwarlal L. Desai, resident of Valsad, instituted two civil suits in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad being Special Civil Suit No. 140 of 1999 and Special Civil Suit No. 141 of 1999 against the partnership firm, namely, J.B. Kharvar & Sons and its partners for recover...
Patel Rambhai Ganeshbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1102
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Justice Anant S. Dave has referred all these matters to a Larger Bench after expressing doubts about the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 181 of 2005, since it omitted to notice the applicability of Clause 2.3(i)(ii) and Clause 5 of Circular dated 2-11-1998 dealing with the acceptability of secondary evidence in entertaining a claim for freedom fighters pension under Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980. Learned single Judge opined as follows:In view of the above, modified Clauses 2.3 and 5 and decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts, which never fell for consideration of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, it is imperative that all these matters can be examined and considered by the Larger Bench of this Court....We may at the outset indicate that the issues referred to us for consideration have already been dealt with by the Apex Court in various decisions, and theref...
Chaudhary Shankarbhai Kanjibhai (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Mafiben Kanjibhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1391
C.K. Buch, J.1. The appellants are the original-defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 122 of 1999 pending in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mehsana and the respondents are the original plaintiffs who have filed the suit for partition alleging that the suit properties are undivided Hindu property and plaintiffs have share in that property and the same are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs.2. Chaudhary Mansangbhai was husband of plaintiff No. 1-respondent No. 1 herein and after his death on 23-10-1994, the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled for their share. The pedigree as mentioned in the plaint shows that Chaudhary Shankarbhai Kanjibhai was head of the family and managing the affairs of ancestral property received by him and details of immovable properties are also mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the plaint. It has been prayed in the plaint that certain movable properties are also in possession of defendants which are 'Stree Dhan' of plaintiff No....
Harmony Multimedia F. Ltd. Vs. Parag Prints P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas756(Guj); [2010]97SCL148(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act 1956, for winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that the respondent-company has failed to discharge its liability to the tune of Rs. 1,24,39,306 due and payable to the petitioner.2. Heard Mr. N. K. Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. K. Majmudar with Ms. K. J. Brahmbhatt, learned advocates appearing for the respondent-company.3. Mr. Navin K. Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-company has submitted that the respondent-company has not given any reply to the statutory notice and hence, on this very ground, the company petition deserves to be admitted and advertised. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Advent Corporation P. Ltd. In re [1969] 39 Comp Cas 463, wherein it is held that (headnote) : 'If a company fails to comply with a notice under Section 434(1)(a) for paymen...
Backbone Projects Ltd. Vs. Yogesh Bhavchandbhai Gadhiya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ783Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate for respondent No. 1.2. Rule. Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposed of to-day.3. In this petition, petitioner has brought under challenge order dated April 24, 2008 passed by appellate authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also the order dated April 30, 2007 passed by the competent authority under the Act.4. By impugned order dated April 30, 2007, the controlling authority directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 52,836/- towards gratuity to the respondent in present petition with interest at the rate of 10% to be calculated from July 1, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order dated April 30, 2007, petitioner herein, thoug...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kankuben Jagabhai Vaktara and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2086
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K. K. Nair for appellant-Insurance Company.2. By way of this appeal, appellant-Insurance Co. has challenged award made by M.A.C.T. Rajkot in Claim Petition No. 854 of 1997 dated 8th August, 2008 wherein Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,15,200-00 in favour of claimants with interest thereon at the rate of 9 percent with a direction to recover same from opponent Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and/or severally.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nair for appellant has raised contention that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating that only Rs. 15-00 were paid as premium by owner in respect of paid-driver, and therefore, risk of person driving the vehicle is not covered by Insurance policy issued by Insurance Company. He also raised contention that as per the terms and conditions of policy, risk of deceased driver was not covered. He relied on the provisions of Section 147(5) of M.V. Act. Therefore, Section 147(5) of M.V. Act is reproduced as u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›