Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1989Guj181; (1989)1GLR21
Shah, J.1. T his appeal has been directed against the judgment an order dt. 29-3-79 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 174 of 1978. Appellant herein is the original petitioner.2. A few facts require to be noticed at the outset. In the aforesaid petition, the reliefs claimed, inter alia, were as under : -'17(a) That Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of setting ,aside the judgment and order dt. 21st Jan., 1978 (Exh. 'E') Passed by the Tribunal constituted under Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 below Exh. 10 in application No. 208 of 1977 and Appeal No. 6 of 1977;(aa) That Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of certiorari or tiny other writ, order or direction setting aside the judgment and order dt. 2nd May 1978 passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 in Application No. 208 of 1977 and Appeal No. 6 of 1977; '3. The afor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR130
D.A. Desai, J.1. Somabhai Ishwarbhai Bhagat filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2348 of 1971 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad complaining of infringement of patent No. 124131 which, according to the evidence was sealed on 26th October 1971 but which, according to Mr. P.M. Raval, learned Advocate now tells me, was sealed on 15th October 1971.2. The patent was in respect of a roasting apparatus and complete specification briefly describes the invention as providing a vertical rotating shaft, the vertical rotating shaft being provided on its upper portion with a bevel gear wheel somewhere near the middle of the shaft, with a lever latch for raising or lowering the vertical shaft as required. At the lower end of the vertical rotating shaft a bent bracket would be fixed to it by a bolt and nut, the other end of the bent bracket being connected to a bent semi-circular and angular shovel. The invention further claims that the centre of the semi-circular and angular shovel will be co-axial to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1974)15GLR474
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench of seven Judges is necessitated because a question has arisen whether a decision given by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Bombay High Court in Bhuta v. Lakdu 21 Bom. L.R. 157 lays down the correct law. The point which has been referred to us for our opinion is, whether the procedure applicable in case of difference of opinion amongst Judges constituting a Division Bench where they are equally divided in opinion in the decision of an appeal from a subordinate Court is governed by Section 98 Sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench of five Judges has taken the view in Bhuta v. Lakdu that in such a case Section 98 Sub-section (2) applies and not Clause 36 and this view taken by five Judges of the Bombay High Court is assailed in the present reference. The reference has been made by J.M. Sheth B.K. Mehta JJ. on a difference of opinion arising between them in a First Appea...
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 : AIR1975Guj39
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench of seven Judges is necessitated because a question has arisen whether a decision given by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Bombay High Court in Bhuta v. I.Lakdu, 21 Bom LR 157 (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) lays down the correct law. The point which has been referred to us for our opinion is, whether the procedure applicable in case of difference of opinion amongst Judges constituting a Division Bench where they are equally divided in opinion in the decision of an appeal from a subordinate Court is governed by section 98. sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench of five Judges has taken the view in 21 Bom LR 157 = (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) that in such a case. section 98, subsection (2) applies and not Clause 36 and this view taken by five Judges of the Bombay High Court is assailed in the present reference. The reference has been made by J. M. Sheth and B. K. Mehta, JJ. on a difference...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)2GLR337
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This petition raises a short but an interesting an question regarding the legality of deposition given by the general power of attorney holder of a party before the tenancy authorities. The learned Member of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) Mr. V.B. Bakshi has taken the view that the general power of attorney holder of a party cannot depose on oath before the Mamlatdar holding an inquiry under Section 32-G read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and accordingly the learned Member of the Tribunal has remanded the proceedings for a fresh decision by the Mamlatdar. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has been challenged by the dissatisfied applicants in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. A few relevant facts deserve to be noted at this stage. The petitioner no. 1 is the try steel and administrator of an institution known a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR600]; (2008)IILLJ175Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant - third party, namely, Navjagrut Labour Union, a Regd. Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 represented by its General Secretary Shri Manoj R. Rajput, who was duly authorised by 106 employees, has filed this application seeking permission of this Court to be joined as respondent No. 3 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1164/1998 and also in Special Civil Application No. 8030/1997.2. The application was opposed by the opponent No. 1 - original appellant - original petitioner i.e. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited. An affidavit-in-reply as well as written submissions were filed during the course of hearing. Similarly, application is also opposed by opponent No. 2 - orig. respondent No. 1 i.e. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha, a representative, Union. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on March 29, 2007. The applicant has also filed an affidavit on March 15, 2007 along with the affidavits of more than 200 employees stating that they have left the Electricity Mazdoor. Sab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present controversy relates to an important question `whether an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the same High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while exercising such power in its criminal jurisdiction'.2. There being conflicting views of two Division Benches of this Court, and some ambiguity whether there can be separate civil and criminal jurisdiction with regard to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, cases were referred to Larger Bench for its decision.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals in brief are as follows: L.P.A. NO.335/2010: The State of Gujarat preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in Special Criminal Application No. 989 of 2009 before this Court against one Nitinbhai Shantilal Bhagat and another (appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2001) challenging the judgement and order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2002Guj48
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. The order in this Appeal shall also decide the connected Public Interest Litigation, being Special Civil Application No. 12475 of 2000, in which similar relief has been claimed by the petitioners, as claimed by the appellants in the Appeal arising from Special Civil Application No. 8286 of 2000.2. The Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11-12-2000, whereby the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the impugned Notification styled as Corrigendum dated 20-7-2000 (Exh. B to the Petition) to the Notification of the State Government dated 21-12-1994 (Exh. A to the Petition) has been dismissed.3. The following facts would explain the grounds of challenge to the impugned Notification, described as Corrigendum (Exh. B to the Petition) dated 20-7-2000, issued by the Government of Gujarat in its Department of Urban Development and Urban Housing.4. The Zalavad Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Society Limited (resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1983)32CTR(Guj)141; [1983]140ITR657(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. These three references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, raise a common question for determination in the backdrop of the following facts. 2. The Government of Bombay granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to a concern known a Lady Sulochna Chinubhai & Company on November 19, 1922, authorizing it to generate and supply electricity to the consumers in Godhra. The assessee is the successor of the said licensee. After the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, came into force, a rating committee was constituted under s. 57(2) thereof at the request of the assessee on January 19, 1950. On the recommendation of the said committee certain charges were fixed with effect from February 1, 1952. Thereafter the Electricity (Supply) Act was amended sometime in 1956. The assessee unilaterally increased the charges for motive power with effect from January 1, 1963, to 35np. per unit with a minimum of Rs. 7 per month for every installation. A few months thereafter, that ...
Tag this Judgment!