Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-21-2008
Reported in : (2008)3GLR2215
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and Mr. D.C. Dave, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29-1-2007 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) passed by the State Government, granting approval under Section 65(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) for sale of land admeasuring 1890.74 sq.mts. in favour of the respondent No. 4-Trust, at the rate of Rs. 912/- per sq.mt., the consequential communication dated 20-2-2007(Annexure 'B' to the petition) of the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-25-2008
Reported in : (2008)3GLR2173
Anant S. Dave, J.1. In this application, which is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned Judge (Coram : D.H. Waghela, J.) vide order dated 29.10.2007 issued Rule making it returnable on 2nd November, 2007. On 18th December, 2007, when another cognate matter being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12646 of 2007 of co-accused was listed for hearing, order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the apex court in Contempt Petition (Cri.) No. 8 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 6 of 2007 was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties where reference was made to Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12646 of 2007 and 12644 of 2007 pending before this Court, the hearing of which was fixed on 18th and 20th December, 2007 respectively. Accordingly, on 18th December, 2007, oral order came to be passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12646 of 2007 by this Court by directing the Registry to list both the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-08-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Guj183
ORDER:GUJARAT MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1963:NO:KV-160-99-NPL-4598-1772-M : Whereas the VVF Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company) Vejalpore manufacturer of various Shaving Creams, Shampoos, Toilet Soap noodles and toilet soaps has expanded its manufacturing operations in the year 1995-96 and has represented to the State Government to give exemption, from octroi for the expanded capacity.AND WHEREAS on verification of the details on investment made by the Company for expanding its capacity it is found that the company has invested more than 50% in the land, buildings and plant and machinery for the expansion of its capacity of existing industrial undertaking and therefore, is entitled to be considered as 'New Industry'.NOW, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 99 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (Guj. XXXIV of 1964) the Government of Gujarat hereby makes the following order, namely:No octroi shall be levied from the VVF Limited Vejalpore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-16-2008
Reported in : (2009)1GLR498
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the above matters have arisen from the same Judgment and Order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharuch, on 15.12.2007, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2007. Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2008 Hiteshkumar Madhusudan Adhvaryu was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and vide the impugned judgment and order, the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge awarded death penalty to the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while he was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-24-2008
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
Decided on : Apr-25-2008
Reported in : LC2008(3)192
K.A. Puj, J.1. The appellant-original plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the interlocutory order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court below injunction application Exh. 5 in Civil Suit No. 04 of 2005 whereby the injunction as prayed for was refused.2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a well reputed manufacturer and seller of synthetic ropes, twines and yarns, nettings and various rope products including Geosynthetic products and systems. One of such products manufactured and sold by the appellant is known as Synthetic Rope Gabion, referred to as SRG Invention in the plaint of the suit. The SRG invention is primarily used for the preservation of riverbanks, seashores, seacoasts etc., particularly to prevent erosion caused by natural processes. Long back since 1983, the appellant has been having a well equipped Research and Development ('R&D;') unit undertaking R&D; in the fields of interests to the appellant including Geosyntheti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-15-2008
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!