Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-22-2006
Reported in : (2006)3GLR2204
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Today, all these applications have been heard and the following order was made:The substitution applications are allowed. Reasons will follow.Accordingly, the reasons are recorded hereinafter.2. All these applications have been filed by different companies seeking substitution of the name of the respective applicant-company in place of Gujarat Electricity Board in the captioned Special Civil Applications and Letters Patent Appeals arising from respective Special Civil Applications. The applicants herein are seeking substitution in place of the original respondents in the main petitions as well as in the Letters Patent Appeals. Admittedly the Letters Patent Appeals have been filed on 20.01.2005 wherein the appellant is shown as Gujarat Electricity Board. The appeals are against common judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1038 of 2004 and cognate matters. The respondents herein are the original petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-31-2006
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1707
Anil R. Dave, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2006 in Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 206. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are as under:2.1 On 17.2.2006, in one of the courts, mobile phone of the appellant, who is a senior advocate practising in this court, started ringing. The appellant, upon finding that his mobile phone had started ringing, switched off the phone while going out of the court room so as to see that the court is not disturbed. When the learned single Judge noticed that the phone of the appellant had started ringing in the court, he issued notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ignoring the directions given by that court that nobody should bring his working mobile phone in the court so as to allow his mobile phone to ring. The notice was made r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-08-2006
Reported in : 2007(34)PTC1(Guj)
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioners, manufacturers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations being aggrieved of impugned order dated 29.06.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad - respondent No. 2 herein are before this Court.Impugned order dated 29.06.2005 is an order which is not only devoid of any reasons but is also drawn in a very sketchy manner. Though the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'the IPAB' for short) has been observing against such orders, time and again, respondent No. 2 though in know of such observations of IPAB, refused to take cognizance thereof. In the Matter of Asian Paints Ltd. v. Registrar Of Trade Marks and Anr. reported in 2005 (30) PTC 444 (IPAB), the board observed as under:.The impugned order has been drawn up in a very sketchy manner. Quasi judicial orders affecting the vital interests of the society should be put down in a more serious manner.2. This very board in yet another matter of Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-06-2006
Reported in : [2008]145CompCas217(Guj)
A.S. Dave, J.1. Shri Saurabh Amin, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Shri Mrugesh Jani, learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator and Shri Utkarsh Jani, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are served.2. By this application, the applicant-Commissioner of Customs, Import and General, New Delhi, has prayed for taking out judges' summons under Section 456 read with Section 457 of the Companies Act and Rule 6 read with Rules 9 and 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, with a prayer clause that direction be issued to the official liquidator of GIL Hospitals Ltd. (in liquidation) to hand over the possession of 13 medical equipments as described at annexure 'A' to the affidavit filed in support of the judges' summons to the applicant since the property is vested in the Central Government with effect from October 30, 1999, by virtue of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. It is, inter alia, prayed that pending hearing and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-09-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3180; (2006)3GLR2043
K.A. Puj, J.1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 5389 of 2005 is filed by Dr. Anil K. Khandelwal and 14 others under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint Inquiry No. 14 of 2005 lodged by the complainant, namely, Shri Maksud Saiyed, Director of Nagami Nicotine Pvt. Ltd., in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 120-B, 177, 181, 191, 192, 200, 209, 405, 409, 415, 420, 425, 463, 464, 468, 470, 471, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and which has been registered as M Case No. 7/2005 at Sayajiganj Police Station pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, dated 28.2.2005 forwarding the Criminal Complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The case of the complainant / present respondent is that Dena Bank floated a public issue of 8 crores equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-03-2006
Reported in : (2007)1GLR527
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Textiles Labour Association and learned advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk appearing on behalf of the respondent - workman.2. The petitioner - Textiles Labour Association has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.1048 of 1985 dated 31st August 1996. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed the reference granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 70% back wages of interim period. This Court, while issuing rule, has granted interim relief against the implementation of the award subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated 18th March 1997. From the record of the petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner by one Mahendrakumar A. Maniar, office bearer of petitioner Association, to bring on record the certain events and facts which have occurred during the pendency of petition. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-09-2006
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1399
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioners, in all four associations, namely, (1) Gujarat Rajya Police Inspectors' Association (2)Gujarat Rajya Police Sub Inspectors' Association (3) Gujarat Rajya Police Head Constable Mandal and (4) Gujarat Rajya Police Constable Mandal, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that the show cause notice dated 28.12.1988 issued to the petitioner associations is illegal and contrary to the Act and the Rules and, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. The petitioners have also asked for the stay against the respondents restraining them from acting upon the show cause notices dated 28.12.1988 and from taking any action pursuant thereto. The petitioners have also asked for the stay against the respondents from cancelling or withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner associations without giving reasonable opportunity to the associations to show cause against the said purported act. 2. During the pende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-12-2006
Reported in : 2007ACJ1198; AIR2007Guj39
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. This group of five appeals arises from the common judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar dated 18th August, 1982 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 126 of 1980 ['MACP' for short] and its allied matters. The claim petitions were filed, heard and decided under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Hence, these appeals are also decided in accordance with the said provisions. The proceedings before the Tribunal arose because of the vehicular accident which occurred on 16th June, 1980 around 8:45 a.m. One bus belonging to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No. GTE 5271 carrying around 25 passengers was travelling from Dwarka to Okha. When it reached near village Majop, a tanker bearing registration No. GTB 4036 came from the opposite direction and there was a collision between these two vehicles. As a result of this collision, some of the passengers travelling in S.T. Bus received injuries and one passeng...
Tag this Judgment!