1
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-02-2001
Reported in : (2002)2GLR741
B.C. Patel, J.1. This petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation as fire safety system was not provided to prevent accidents in cinema halls, factories and high rise buildings. The petitioner sought for several directions including to take action against erring officers, who are responsible for gross violation of Rules and Regulations and to direct the respondents to create an independent machinery as also for mandatory agency representing various Sections of the people to monitor working of the fire safety measures. Initially the Division bench (Coram: R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N.N. Mathur, J.) issued notice on 1.7.1997, returnable on 21.7.1997. Thereafter, on 4.9.1997, the Court (Coram: R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N.N. Mathur, J.) considered the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent admitting the fact that there are large number of high-rise buildings within the municipal limits, which are said to be without the required fire safety and fire prevention equipments. This being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-11-2001
Reported in : 2002(24)PTC580(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd-original applicant-appellant-petitioners herein have filed this appeal against the judgment and order, dated 19.8.94 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks the respondent No. 2 herein wherein he has allowed the opposition No. AMD 425 filed by Wellcome Foundation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the opponent No.1') and application No. 483813 in class 5 of Fourth Schedule of the Act is ordered to be refused for registration under the provisions of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. FACTS:2.1 The appellants are company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and carrying on business at Ahmedabad.2.2 The appellants filed application on 1.5.1988 and applied for registration ofTrade Mark 'TROVIREX' vide application No. 433813 in class 5 of Fourth Schedule of the Act in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The aforesaid application was accepted for registrati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-01-2001
Reported in : (2002)1GLR355
C.K. Buck, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned A.P.P. Mr. N.D. Gohil for respondent No. 1-State and learned Spl. P. P. Mr. D.N. Patel for respondent No. 2-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I. for short) in both these applications.2. Both these Misc. Cri. Applications are preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. praying bail by the petitioners-accused of Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994 pending in the Court of learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Since in both the applications similar points are involved, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioners of both these applications i.e. Misc. Cri. Application Nos. 6523 of 2000 and 1722 of 2001 are facing trial of the offences punishable under Sections 22 & 24 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 120B of I.P.C. and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act' ). Both these petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-05-2001
Reported in : AIR2002Guj197
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. This LPA has been listed before us with Civil Application No. 9257 of 2001 filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the LPA in Civil Application No. 3602 of 2001 which was filed seeking order under Order 39, Rule 2A read with Section 151 of CPC. Civil Application No. 3602 of 2001 was disposed of by giving certain directions and observations by judgment and order dated 27-6-2001 which is the subject matter of this LPA. 2. On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel Mr. D. C. Dave raised an objection that the present LPA preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27-6-2001 passed in the proceedings in appeal from order for alleged breach of the order of injunction passed therein under Order 39, Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. In support of the preliminary objection, it is stated that the impugned order which has been pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-27-2001
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3294
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. What is challenged in these two petitions which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are two Orders, both dated November 23, 2001 and issued by the Director (Sugar), Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, removing the petitioners as Directors of the Vadodara District Co-operative Sugarcane Growers Union Limited and Sardar Co-operative Sugar Industries Limited ('the Societies' for short) and appointing respondent Nos. 4 to 15 as Directors of the Societies as per Bye-laws Nos. 21(2)(A) and 8(B)(1) of both the respective Societies.2. As both these petitions involve determination of common questions of facts and law, by the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing and I propose to dispose them of by this common Judgment.3. In Order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be advantageous to refer to the facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 11098 of 2001.4. The averments ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-19-2001
Reported in : (2002)3GLR26
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this group of 20 applications a common question of condonation of delay on the common ground is involved, therefore, upon request they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The condonation of delay in filing First Appeals against the common award of the Reference Court, Ahmedabad, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act), is sought to be condoned inter alia pleading that there is a delay of 146 days on the part of the applicant - Special Land Acquisition Officer, on the grounds stated, elaborately, in Para. 2, which is supported by an affidavit of the officer of the Legal Department of the State of Gujarat. The delay, is therefore, sought to be condoned on the ground of inter and intra departmental procedural delay, since the decision, making process for challenging the common award of the Reference Court was to be crystallized, after having consultation and discussions with various departments inter alia mainly, General Administration, Roads and Buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-23-2001
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2010
A.L. Dave, J. 1. This is a revision application preferred by the revisioners, who are the original plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2000 pending in District Court, at Vadodara. That suit is preferred by the plaintiffs alleging infringement of Registered Patent No. 183097 dated March 19, 1998, possessed by the plaintiffs by the defendants. In that suit, application for interim injunction was tendered and the learned Assistant Judge, Vadodara, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. The defendants, in reply to the said application, filed an affidavit-in-reply, at Ex. 24, to resist that application and to get the ad-interim order vacated. In that reply, certain contentions were raised which, according to the plaintiffs, amounted to praying for revocation of the patent. According to the plaintiffs, it was a counter-claim for revocation, and therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act read with Section 64 of the said Act, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-28-2001
Reported in : [2002]108CompCas747(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20-7-2001, passed by the learned company judge overruling the preliminary objections raised by the appellant-company to the maintainability of the winding up petition (Company Petition No. 186 of 2000) filed by the present respondent.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:The present respondent ('the petitioning-creditor' or 'the original petitioner') has filed Company Petition No. 186 of 2000 for winding up of the appellant-company under the provisions of sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act). Upon service of notice, the appellant-company appeared and filed affidavit in reply dated 28-2-2001, raising the following preliminary contentions : (i) There is no resolution for institution of winding up proceedings against the respondent-company by the petitioning company;(ii) Mr. S.L. Jain who has filed an affidavit in support of the petition was not autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-2001
Reported in : (2001)4GLR3518
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. A Draft amendment has been given by Shri P.H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking certain amendments in the petition. The draft amendment is opposed by Shri P.V. Hathi, learned Counsel for the respondent. The prayer in the draft amendment is to declare that the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 applies to the employees of the respondent Nagarpalika and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner employees. Alternative amendment is sought that it may be declared that the decision of the respondent to exclude the employees of the Nagarpalika from extending the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is ultravires the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and to declare the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to that extent as unconstitutional and direct the respondents to extend the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the employees of the Nagarpalika. Further amendment sought is to declare inactio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-21-2001
Reported in : 2002(24)PTC308(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. Cadila Laboratories-petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against the judgment and order dated 14.11.1990 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Trade Marks, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 2 by the said decision was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner for registration of its Trade Mark consisting of the word 'Brofex' (word per se) for the specification of goods to read as 'Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Preparations' in class 5 of 4th Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner had also filed this application under Section 12(1) read with Section 18(4) of the Act. The Registrar was pleased to reject the application and ordered for advertisement in the Trade Mark Journal.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:2.1 The petitioner has filed an application on 14.9.1987...
Tag this Judgment!