Gujarat Court November 2013 Judgments
Tripada Healthcare Private Limited Vs. Tripada Bio-care
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2013
S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.D. Shukla for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. D.T. Dave for the respondent. 2. Both the advocates have agreed to finally decide the appeal since interim relief is prayed for by separate civil application and relief in civil application as well as main appeal is practically same i.e. prayer for injunction in favour of the appellant. 3. The appellant is original plaintiff before the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2013 wherein an application for interim stay was rejected by judgment and order dated 8.8.2013 by the 4th (Adhoc) Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). The appellant has prayed to restrain the defendant and his associates from using the trade-name "TRIPADA" and/or other mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to plaintiffs registered trade-mark "TRIPADA" in any manner and at any place during the pendency of suit and thereby to restrain the defendant from committing the act of i...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Dipak Natubhai Thakor and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Oral Judgment: (K.J. Thaker, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No.118/2010 dated 05.01.2012 by the learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur whereby, respondent no.1, original accused no.1, was convicted for the offences punishable u/s.363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short, œthe IPC?) whereas, respondent no.2, original accused no.2, was convicted for the offences punishable u/s.363 and 366 r/w. Section 114 IPC. For conviction u/s.363 IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.250/- and in case of default, RI for a further period of ten days. For conviction u/s.366 IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.250/- and in case of default, RI for a further period of ten days; and for conviction u/s. 376 IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default, RI for a further period of one m...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh J. Gadhavi Vs. Deputy Engineer, Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
Oral Judgment 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner, a consumer of electricity in the area of Kutch-Bhuj having consumer No. 38408/00150/7 for the purpose of production of Salt, has approached this Court by way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers : œ(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Checking Sheet dated 30.12.2003 and the order dated 15.7.2004 passed by the Appellate Committee qua rejecting the part of the appeal; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent Board from disconnecting the electricity connection provided to the petitioner; (C) Be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case? Thus, what is essentially un...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaneshbhai Bhikhubhai Patel and Another Vs. Shantiniketan Cooperative ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
Cav Judgement 1. The petitions are arising out of the interim orders pending Lavad Suits before the learned Board of Nominee. Since the facts and issues in both the petitions are similar, they are heard and decided together finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned advocates for the contesting parties. 2. Challenge made in both the petitions is to the orders dated 21.8.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), whereby the Tribunal rejected two different revision applications preferred by the petitioners against the interim orders of injunction passed by the learned Board of Nominee in two different Lavad Suits preferred by the respondent No.1- the Co-operative Housing Society against the petitioners. 3. The facts in nutshell need to be referred for the purpose of deciding the petitions are as under:- Respondent No.1 is a registered Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioners who purchased the plot Nos.4 and 1 respectively ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›