Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-25-2008
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
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!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-09-2008
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)527; (2008)2GLR1031
Jayant Patel, J.1. All in-service doctors, whose services are governed by various statutory Rules framed by the Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution, including that of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Conduct Rules' for the sake of convenience), Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'General Rules' for the sake of convenience), and Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 ((hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules' for the sake of convenience), have preferred all the petitions for challenging the policy of the State Government vide Resolution dated 29.3.2007 for discontinuing Non-Practicing Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'NPA' for the sake of convenience) and for permitting them for private practice after office hours. As the policy of the Government also provides for giving option to in-service doctors, who have completed 15 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1226
M.R. Shah, J.1. As all these First Appeals arise out of common judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court and raise common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.2. In all these First Appeals, the appellants original opponent No. 2 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation [ONGC] - acquiring body, has challenged the common judgement and award dtd. 15/10/2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana (Mr.J.R. Shah) (the SReference Court for short) in Land Reference Case Nos. 3780 to 3784 of 2003, whereby the Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 3 per sq.mtr. from the date of taking over possession upto 31/12/1983; Rs. 3.33 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1984 to 31/12/1985; Rs. 4 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1986 to 31/12/1987; Rs. 4.50 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1988 to 31/12/1990; Rs. 5 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1991 to 31/12/1993; Rs. 6.66 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1994 to 31/12/1996; Rs. 8.33 per sq.mtr from 1/1/1997 to 31/12/1999; Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
Reported in : (2008)3GLR2213
M.D. Shah, J.1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-29-2008
Reported in : (2009)1GLR683; (2009)23VST298(Guj)
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. This group of petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the prayers, inter alia, that a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to make the earlier exemption granted to the petitioners by the certificates issued by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 available to the petitioners for the purpose of exemption under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 at least for the duration as mentioned in the aforesaid certificate (passed under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969), if not for more time.2. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant exemption to the industry of the petitioners under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 from the date of coming into force of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the same terms as exemption has been granted earlier under the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-18-2008
Reported in : (2008)3GLR1856; (2009)ILLJ399Guj; [2008]84SCL133(Guj)
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This Original Jurisdiction appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 in Company Petition No. 93 of 2007 by which the learned Company Judge sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation of the petitioner-Company- Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'IPCL' or Sthe transferor Company) having its registered office at Baroda with Reliance Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RIL' or 'Reliance' or the Stransferee Company) having its registered office at Mumbai.2. Reliance Industries Ltd. having its registered office at Bombay filed Company Application No. 283 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court. Pursuant to the order dated 16.3.2007 in the said application, RIL held separate meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors (including debenture holders) and unsecured creditors of RIL on 21.4.2007. The Chairman of the said meeting submitted his report before the Bombay High Court and the RIL filed Company petition No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-02-2008
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(Guj)423; [2009]313ITR192(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. All these five tax appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 27A of the WT Act, 1957, raising the substantial question of law for determination and consideration of this Court. In tax appeal No. 598 of 2008 following substantial question of law is raised:Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CWT(A) whereby deleting the penalty levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, without considering the provisions of Section 19(1) of the WT Act?2. The Tribunal has passed the common order dealing with the penalties under Sections 15B, 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957. The assessment years involved are asst. yrs. 1968-69, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1983-84 and 1984-85.3. Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2008 is in respect of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) for the asst. yr. 1984-85. Tax appeal No. 599 of 2008 is in respect of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) for the asst. yr. 1983-84. Tax appeal No. 600 of 2008 is in respect of penalty under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!