Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1972Guj78; (1971)GLR71
Divan, J.1. In both these petitions though the petitioners are different, the provisions of the Rules and the bye-laws framed under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been challenged by the respective petitioners. The rules in both the petitions are in connection with the bye-laws of the Kaira District Tobacco Market Committee. Anand and in connection with the market area, the principal market year and the market proper set up for the purpose of controlling trade in tobacco in Kaira District these challenges have been made. 2. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 460 of 1969 state that petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are dealers in tobacco. Petitioner No. 1 purchases its tobacco from agriculturists and / or other dealers in tobacco and / or from through brokers or commission agents and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are commission agents and brokers. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 claim to be agriculturists and tobacco growers. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)1GLR205
ORDER(a) Trial SessionsAgainst accused No. 1Acquittal from all chargesCourt Judge, Arareli-Dist.Against accused No. 2Acquittal 'Against accused No. 3Acquittal '(b) Division Mr. R. K. Bench Abichandani, J.Against accused No. 1Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 read with 34of I.P.C.Against accused No. 2Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C.Against accused No. 3Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 read with 34of I.P.C.Mr. K. R.Against All Vyas, J.Acquittal from all charges25-1-2002(J. N. Bhatt, J.)Since the accused persons are not present today and they are required to be heard on the question of quantum of punishment as mandated in law under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C., request made by the learned Advocates appearing for the accused persons for adjournment for the purpose of hearing the accused persons on the quantum of punishment is accepted and the matter is now posted on 8th February 2002, as requested.25-1-2002 (J. N. Bhatt, J.)Design And Desideratum Of Hearing As Mandated Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas204(Guj); [2007]79SCL47(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgement shall dispose of Company Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2006. 2. Company Petition No. 10 of 2006 has been filed under Sections 78, 100, 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) by the Company named Core Healthcare Limited, a company incorporated under the Act in the matter of a composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of compromise with the lenders and reconstruction, reorganisation of capital and demerger between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited and their respective shareholders. The petitioner-Company has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) The Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement referred to in para-15 of this petition and being Annex. with this petition hereto, be sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court so as to be binding on all Equity Shareholders, Class 'A' Lenders and Class 'B' Lenders of the Petitioner Company and on the Petitioner Company;(b) That the Petitioner Company do within 30 days from the date of sealing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR796
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Pramod Bhagwan Nayak, petitioner original detenu, has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the order dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, Surat, respondent No. 2 herein. The petition was filed before this Court on 13-10-2005. When the matter was placed for hearing on 21-10-2005, this Court has issued rule. On behalf of the respondents Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned A.G.P., appears. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. Mr. Amrish Pandya, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of Ms. Krishna U. Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 23-8-2005 in which the authority has passed order under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.A.S.A. Act'). He has also invited my attention to the order of committal dated 23-10-2005 whereby the petitioner has been sent to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]95CompCas663(Guj)
R. Balia, J. 1. The two petitions raise substantively identical questions and have been heard together at the request of counsel for the parties. Hence, I propose to deal with the same by a common order. First about facts : The facts and preliminary objections relating to Special Civil Application No. 2224 of 1996. 2. This petition has been filed in the circumstances to be stated hereinafter and raises the issue about the authority of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short, 'the SEBI') to order impounding and/or confiscation of the whole or a part of the consideration of a completed transaction, which in ordinary circumstances concerned the party to the transaction is entitled to receive and for whom it is an actionable claim, under the existing provisions of law under which the Securities and Exchange Board of India functions. This issue is similar to the one raised in Special Civil Application No. 5483 of 1996 - D. M. Investments v. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1997Guj83; (1997)1GLR362
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. Is human blood a 'drug'? AND Are Pathologists tapping blood from human beings manufacturing 'drug' so as to incur liability to obtain licence under Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?are the questions posed for consideration of this court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by some of the Pathologists and Association of Pathologists.2. The respondents, namely, the Director of Food and Drugs has by notices, dated 8th July, 1983 called upon the petitioners individually to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for breach of Section 18(c) of the said Act inasmuch as they have been carrying on the activities of tapping blood, collecting the blood and of selling the blood for which licence is required'under Section 18(c) of the said Act and since such activity was being carried on by them without obtaining licence, actions were required to be taken against them. The issuance of such notice to various pa...
Tag this Judgment!