Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)3GLR2635; LC2009(1)168
K.A. Puj, J.1. The plaintiff, namely, Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2486 of 2007 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, distributors, stockists from manufacturing, marketing and using the impugned design registered under No. 186992 in Class 28 on 16.10.2001 in respect of D Shape Tablet and/or any tablet, which is having similar shape and configuration or material reproduction of the plaintiff's registered design. The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from printing, publishing, using, marketing, coping or imitating the impugned design of tablet, its drawings and parts thereof and restraining them from committing infringement of the design of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for direction to the defendants to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the damage caused to the plaintiff on account of infringement of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1647
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, a doctor at Primary Health Centre, along with three other accused persons, have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to set aside order dated 17-11-2008 made below application Exh. 7 in Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 2008 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand. By that impugned order in the revision application filed by the original complainant, the order dated 12-3-2008 of learned J.M.F.C. rejecting the prayer for ordering investigation by registering an F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was set aside and straightaway summons were ordered to be issued against all the five persons accused in the original complaint. That order was challenged mainly on the ground that learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction and power to straightaway order issuance of summons in a revision application under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the original com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1156; (2005)2GLR1437
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. The appellant - convict prisoner has preferred the present appeal through District Jail, Junagadh and Mr. BS Supehia, has been appointed as his counsel. After receiving the records and proceedings of the Sessions Case No.32 of 2003 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, the office has placed this appeal before this court for admission.2. Heard Mr. BS Supehia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. IM Pandya, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State at length.3. Short facts of the prosecution case are such that on 7/7/202 at about 2 to 3 p.m. the appellant accused came to the house of the victim and at that time, the victim and her mother were present in the house. As the appellant accused was working in the agricultural field of neighbour namely Ghanabhai Gangarambhai, the accused and the complainant side were known to each other. After some chitchat, the appellant accused requested the mother of the victim to take the victim with him in the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)4GLR836
1. In this petition under the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 105/92 dated 20.2.99 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By virtue of the said order, the tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No. 10372/82 dated 3.5.91 and order dated 17.5.92 passed by the Deputy Collector, Navsari in Tenancy Appeal No. 28/91.2. The facts pertaining to the case are as under. The petitioner was claiming to be a tenant in respect of lands bearing Blocks Nos. 147, 247, 146 and 148 situated at Village: Munsad and had therefore submitted an application under the provisions of sec. 70(b) and sec. 70(nb) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said application was rejected by the Mamlatdar and ALT by his order dated 3.5.91 on the ground that the petitioner was having family relation with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)4GLR628
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer dated 31.3.86 passed by the respondent No.1, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, transferring respondent No.3, Mr.Naval C. Mehta, from the post of Sanitary Inspector in the Health Department to the post of Shop Inspector, with effect from 1.4.86 on administrative grounds and also the seniority list prepared by the Corporation as on 1.2.78.2. The petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the impugned order of transfer and the seniority list are illegal, depriving him of his right and therefore it is sought to be quashed.3. A conspectus of material and relevant factual aspects may be narrated, at first.4. The petitioner has been in the service of the respondent No.1, Corporation since 1st February, 1978, holding the post of Sanitary Inspector. Respondent No.2, Mr Mehta, became Sanitary Inspector with effect from 18th April, 1983, when he was promoted to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)3GLR2588
J.R. Vora, J.1. This appeal is preferred under the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is addressed against judgment and order delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 8th of November, 1996, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was prosecuted but acquitted of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, this acquittal is not the subject-matter of change by the State Government.2. Deceased and victim in this case is father while accused-appellant herein happens to be his son. Prosecution story discloses that the incident in question occurred on 14th April, 1996 at about 3-00 p.m. at village Ambod, Taluka Mansa of Mehsana District. The appellant had some dispute against his father in respect of money, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1693
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19th November, 2003 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9. Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2002 and Sessions Case No. 194 of 2002. whereby the present appellant, who is original accused No. 1 has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant is also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Rest of the accused persons were given benefit of doubt and had been acquitted. Against this order, the original accused No. l- appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Necessary brief facts of the case, are as un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR261
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the petitioner, Mrs.Ketty A. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr.Saurabh Amin, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 are heard.2. Before I refer to the facts of the case, I must record that present is a case, where, Mrs.Ketty A. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr.Saurabh Amin learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, tried their best to mislead this Court by making false statements and misstatements in the Court. With bruised feeling and bleeding heart, I am required to record all what had taken place in the court in presence of Mr.A.J. Patel, Mr.Shital R.Patel, Mr.Dhirendra Mehta, Ms.Neesha Parikh, Dr.Amee Yajnik, learned Counsel and each person was listening that how these two advocates, despite repeated warning from the Court, were making false misleading statements to obtain favourable orders.3. To start, I asked Mr.Amin that whether the order dtd.29/4/1992 (Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR330]; (2008)1GLR436; (2008)ILLJ608Guj
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner-State Government, being aggrieved by the order dated 6th April, 1999 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Vadodara, is before this Court with a submission that the Appellate Authority was absolutely unjustified in directing the State Government to make the payment of gratuity to the claimant/workman-Ramkrushna Gopal Soni, though it has come on record that Ramkrushna Gopal Soni was an employee of Girls Remand Home run by a registered Trust.2. Shri I.M. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, submitted that a perusal of the order made by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Annexure-B to the petition) would show that the dispute was between the workman - Ramkrushna Gopal Soni and the Secretary of the Remand Home and the State was not a party and the final order was made by the Controlling Authority against the Trust only. It is submitted that the State Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. In the present petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner for award of contract for transportation of packed LPG Gas Cylinders from their bottling plant at Hariyala. The petitioner has prayed for a writ or direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for award of the contract for transportation of the packed LPG cylinders and to award such contract to the petitioner in respect of her own dealership.2. The facts leading to the present petition can be shortly stated as under:2.1 The petitioner Jyoti Sanjeev is proprietor of Jyoti Transport as well as Jay Jyoti Gas Agency, both of which are proprietary concerns. The petitioner is an authorised LPG Distributor appointed by the respondents for Ahmedabad(West) territory since 1995 and runs the agency in the name and style of Jyoti Gas Agency.2.2 Respondent No. 1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is concededly "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!