Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR340
Y.R. Shah, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the decisions by this Court (Divan J.) in Second Appeals Nos. 760 of 1960 and 757 of 1960 respectively. The question about the application of the principles of res-judicata arising in these two appeals was negatived by Divan, J. in those two Second Appeals. The facts necessary to understand the points which arise in these Appeals are as follows:2. The plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 1224 of 1954, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda who are appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 1966 claimed to have obtained a right to cut certain trees standing on 32 survey numbers mentioned in the plaint and also on survey No. 200 of the village Jinjarvani in Chhotaudepur Taluka by two documents dated 25th April, 1954, executed by the Jagirdars of the village. Jiajarvani was admittedly a proprietary Jagir village which would mean that the Jagirdars were the owners of the soil also. It is not disputed that these Jagir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : LC2008(1)402; 2008(37)PTC128(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The appellants/original plaintiffs have filed this Appeal against the order and judgment dated 21.8.2007 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Injunction Application in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2007 in its original jurisdiction, rejecting the Interim Application for injunction and consequently vacating the temporary injunction granted by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Suit prior to its transfer to this Court.2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present Appeal are that the appellant after intensive research, development and incurring huge expenses, invented the invention viz. 'Polyvinyl Chloride threaded pipe joint system with coupler and wire locking device comprising two pipe joining components, two sealing rings, including a wire lock, the said wire lock is component being inserted into the groove which locks the coupler with the one end of the pipe joint, the said coupler joining both the ends using the threads, the said threads ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj139; (2000)1GLR920
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. What is in 'focus :-The main question, in the focus, which, revolves, round, for determination and decision, in this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), is, 'Whether, an appeal would lie under Clause 15, of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Bombay High Court, applicable to the Gujarat High Court, to a Division Bench of this Court, from the judgment of a Single Judge, of this Court, recorded and rendered in exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction arising out of 'Appeals from Orders' involv-ing and warranting analysis, interpretation of, and applicability of the provisions' : (i) Clauses 15 and 44 of LPA of Bombay Applicable to Gujarat (ii) Sections 100-A 102(2), Section 104(1) & (2) 105,106 107 and 109 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and (iii) Order 43, Rule 1 (r) and Order 45, Rule 3 of the CPC and (iv) Article 133(1) and (2) and Article 134-A and Article 147 of the Constitution of India. 2. The appeal, before the learned Single Judge, came to be filed, against the Interlocutory...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2003Guj275; (2003)2GLR926; (2003)2PLR926; [2003]46SCL118(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these appeals have been placed before this Full Bench in view of the order dated 19-6-2002 of a Division Bench of this Court referring the appeals for consideration and decision before the Larger Bench in view of the wide impact of the questions about interpretation of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure and about maintainability of appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the T.M. Act') against the decision made by a learned single Judge of this Court under Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 109 of the Act.2. O. J. Appeal No. 53 of 1998 is filed against the judgment and order dated 22-6-1998 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in an appeal under Section 109(2) & (4) of the Act by which the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22-12-1995 granting the review application filed by Nasik Hing Supplying Co. (the appellant befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769
Miabhoy, J.(1) In this group of six appeals, a preliminary objection has been raised for decision. The objection was first raised when Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1960 was called out for hearing. As the objection affected a number of other Letters Patent Appeals, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal and directed that all other Letters Patent Appeals in which the same objection was likely to be raised should be fixed for hearing them together so that the preliminary objection, if raised, could be decided after hearing all the learned Advocates appearing therein. It is in pursuance of that order that all the above appeals are fixed for hearing the preliminary objection if the same happens to be raised. This judgment will dispose of the preliminary objection which is raised by all the learned Advocates for the respondents in all the appeals.(2) The preliminary objection is that the present appeals are incompetent without the certificate of the learned Judgers of he Bombay High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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
Reported in : AIR1986Guj156; (1986)1GLR101
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant, original plaintiff, of Civil Suit No. I of 1985 in the District Court of Panchmahals at Godhra has brought in challenge the judgment and order of learned single Judge of this Court, M. B. Shah, J. in Appeal from Order which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court in exercise of his powers under O. 43. R. 1 of the Civil P.C., 1908. The appellant-plaintiff had moved an interim injunction application Ex. 5 under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Civil P.C. praying for interim injunction pending the suit against the respondents-defendants. After hearing the concerned parties, the learned Joint District Judge of Panchmahals at Godhra dismissed the application Ex. 5 for interim injunction and vacated the ad interim relief. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Judge, the appellant preferred Appeal from Order as miscellaneous appeal under O. 43, R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the common judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4259 of 2007 and other allied matters. 2. The short facts are that the respondent herein executed a Memorandum of Entry (hereinafter referred to as the instrument for short) dated 18th March 1993 by way of mortgage in favour of Financial Institutions/Banks. Before the execution of the instrument, the respondent made an application to appellant No.2 under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) for adjudication of proper stamp duty leviable under the provisions of the Act. The appellant No.2 herein determined the stamp duty leviable at Rs.10,000/. On adjudication of stamp duty by appellant No.2, the respondent herein paid the said amount to appellant No.2. Hence, the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj113; (1987)1GLR437
Ravani, J.1. In the annals of history, it is difficult to discover dictator, a feudal lord or a monarch, who openly discarded ' public interest ' and asserted his legal right to rule the people and consider 'public interest' as irrelevant. Even military dictators, while exploiting the people and inflicting miseries on them, cover their faces by the veil of 'Public interest' But in a democracy wedded to the welfare of the people and where the Constitution of the country has promised the people establishment of an egalitarian society based on socialistic principles, a nationalised bank (which is 'State' within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution) asserts through its senior counsel (Mr. M. S. Sanghvi) that the bank is under no legal obligation to take into consideration 'public interest' while executing a money decree and, therefore, it shall disregard the same. Shocking as it is, this is the stand of the bank and not a mere legal point raised by an attorney of the bank. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1981Guj142; (1981)0GLR389
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil P. C. involves a short question of law as to whether documents Exs. 38 and 40 relied upon by the present appellants -original defendants - amount to acknowledgment of subsisting mortgagee rights on the part of the respondent and his father within the meaning of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, .1908). If these documents are held to amount to valid acknowledgement within the meaning of aforesaid section of the Limitation Act, the appellants are entitled to succeed but not otherwise.2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have a glance at certain material facts as are brought out in the case.3. In Dohad town in Panchamahals District is situated an immovable property bearing city survey No. 2810 which was originally an open piece of land over which a hut was constructed later on. The said property was belonging to one Marabkhan Sin...
Tag this Judgment!