Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 2001 Page 8 of about 83 results (0.017 seconds)

Dec 20 2001 (HC)

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Saurashtra Paints (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-20-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Guj221; (2002)2GLR1109

r.k. abichandani, j. 1. the appellant-municipal corporation has challenged the judgment and order of the learned single judge quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent-corporation for the sale of the property scheduled in the petition and restraining the corporation from selling or attempting to sell by public auction or otherwise the property in question and from taking any steps against the property for recovery of its property tax dues for the period prior to the auction sale.2. the respondent-petitioner had prayed for a direction against the municipal corporation for not proceeding with the sale of the property for realisation of its dues in respect of that property for any period between 24th february, 1955 and 17th july, 1973. according to the petitioner, since it had purchased the property bearing survey no. 70 admeasuring 6050 sq. yards (1 acre & 7 gunthas approximately), which was specified in the schedule to the petition, in a public auction which was held on 17th july, 1973 by the commissioner for taking accounts pursuant to the orders made in darkhast no. 304 of 1971 by the ahmedabad city civil court for execution of the mortgage decree obtained by the gujarat stale finance corporation against the original owner-mortgagor m/s. shivlal virchand contractor and a sale certificate was issued in respect of the said property, the respondent-petitioner became its absolute owner from 17-1-1974 and had acquired a title free from all charges and mortgages created .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2001 (HC)

Atul Trading Co. Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-01-2001

Reported in : (2001)4GLR2967

order new delhi, the 30th november, 1974. s.o. 681 (e). in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the central government hereby directs- (a) that the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said act to make orders to provide for the matters specified in clauses (d), (e), (f) , (g), (h), (i) (ii) and (j) of sub-section (2) thereof shall, in relation to all essential commodities, other than food stuffs and fertilisers (whether inorganic, organic or mixed), be exercisable also by a state government or, in relation to a union territory, by the administrator thereof, subject to the following conditions, namely;- (i) that the delegation of powers under clause (d) shall not extend to inter state transport or distribution and the powers under that clause shall, not be exercised so as to prejudicially affect such transport or distribution in pursuance of any order issued by the central government; (ii) that all orders, under clause (f) shall require the prior concurrence of the central government; (iii) that no order shall be issued in pursuance of the powers hereby delegated if it is inconsistent with any order issued by the central government under the said act; (iv) that in making an order relating to any of the matters specified in clause (j), the state government or as the case may be, the administrator of a union territory authorise only an officer of government as a delegate of the central .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2001 (HC)

State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Aniruddhsinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-11-2001

Reported in : (2002)2GLR1174

d.m. dharmadhikari, c.j.1. this l.p.a., has been preferred by the state and inspector general of polite (prison) to challenge the order of the learned single judge dated 14-8-2001 whereby against the decision of the authority of the state, parole has been granted to the petitioner who is a life-convict for a period of five days so that he may offer condolences to the members of his family, after the accidental death of his younger brother on 18-5-2001.2. learned single judge, after considering the objections raised to the grant of parole of the petitioner, imposed stringent conditions requiring security and escort to be provided to the petitioner at his cost and on deposit of rs. 1 lakh as a condition precedent of his release. the stringent conditions on which parole has been granted are required to be reproduced to appreciate the objections raised by the authority of the state to the grant of parole to the petitioner :'(a) that the state government will provide strict, complete and competent escort and the strength of the escort will be determined by the state government considering the apprehension which has been pointed out by the state government. however, it is directed to the state government to provide appropriate disciplinary escort to the petitioner from the jail authority while transferring the petitioner from sabarmati central jail to rajkot district jail.(b) the petitioner is directed to deposit the sum of rs. 1.oo.ooo/- {rupees one lakh in cash) by himself or any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2001 (HC)

Anand Municipality and anr. Vs. Navjeevan Pulse Mills and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-10-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Guj192; (2001)4GLR3226

r. k. abichandani, j. 1. the appellants challenge the interim relief granted in terms of paragraph 12(b) of the petition filed by the respondents which reads as follows :'pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or stay order against the concerned respondents from taking possession of the land mentioned in the notice dated 2-5-2000 or taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of the said notice annexure 'h', annexure 'i' and annexure 'ee'.'2. it was submitted by the learned counsel that the learned single judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the declaration sought in paragraph 12(aa) of the petition to the effect that the preliminary and final scheme as sanctioned by the state government in relation to final plot no. 131(85) were ultra vires, bad in law and unenforceable and that the proceedings adopted by the town planning officer were without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice. referring to ground (j) of the petition, it was submitted that the challenge against the scheme was made on the ground that the scheme was violative of the fundamental and other rights of the appellants-petitioners guaranteed by articles 14, 19 and 301a of the constitution of india. it was submitted that the learned single judge has committed a jurisdictional error in his finding given in paragraph 9 of the impugned order while stating that the challenge, in substance, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 2001 (HC)

Pravinkumar Chandrakant Vyas and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-14-2001

Reported in : (2001)3GLR2755

d.m. dharmadhikari, c.j.1. in the s.c.a. and l.p.a., common question of general importance raised by the petitioners is on the constitutional and legal validity of the circulars no. rb/618/476/1999 styled as standing order no. 28 dated 20-2-1999 and no. rb/618/1433/2001, dated 25-5-2001 of the police commissioner, rajkot city to all his subordinate police officers.2. we shall deal with and reproduce the contents of the two impugned circulars hereinafter. the two circulars in substance direct the subordinate police officers to make necessary investigation of the case of arrestees in any bailable offence and for that purpose interrogate them, take their finger prints, identification marks and photographs. he has advised the police officers not to forthwith release the accused on bail in bailable offences without making necessary preliminary investigation and for that purpose, if necessary, they may obtain remand from the magistrate. one of the circulars also directs that if in a case of bailable offence, the arrestee is released within 16 hours, the concerned police officer shall submit a report with his cogent reasons to the assistant police commissioner with a copy thereof to the control room for such release within 16 hours.3. on behalf of some of the persons arrested by rajkot police for bailable offences in these two cases, it is complained that arrestees were not released within 16 hours by the concerned police because of the mandate contained in the two impugned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2001 (HC)

Jagdishbhai Bhimrai Setalvad and ors. Vs. New Brahma Kshatriya Co-oper ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-17-2001

Reported in : AIR2001Guj275; (2001)3GLR2678; (2001)3GLR822

r.k. abichandani, j.1. the appellants challenge the order dated 2nd april, 1992 made by the learned single judge in special civil application no. 2326 of 1992 dismissing the petition in which the appellants had challenged the action of the respondent no. 1-co-operative housing society of deducting an amount of rs. 3,25,085-00 by way of premium from the sale consideration that the appellants were to receive pursuant to the sale of their house property in the society, and also the approval granted by the respondent no. 2-district registrar of co-operative societies to regulation 6a [form-b] of the bye-laws of the society, pursuant to which such premium was deducted. a direction was also sought on the district registrar to secure implementation of his circular dated 20-4-1988 and thereby get released the aforesaid amount to the appellants.2. sub-plot no. 23 in the respondent-society was in the joint names of the appellants and was sold by them to devan vikas mandal and new devan vikas mandal by different registered sale deeds dated 15-2-1991. the managingcommittee of the society resolved on 9-2-1991 to enter the name of the transferee as the member of the society. the transferee deposited the full value of consideration of rs. 26,07,231-04 with the society and out of that amount, the society deducted rs. 3,26,085-00 as premium of sale consideration as per the provisions contained in regulation 6a of form 'b' attached to the bye-laws.3. the learned single judge noted that a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2001 (HC)

Ranaji Bheraji Vanjara Vs. Bakore Gram Panchayat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-27-2001

Reported in : (2002)4GLR2844

a.r. dave, j.1. these four appeals have been filed against a common judgemnt dated 5.3.2001 passed by the learned single judge in 4 special civil applications. as the facts pertaining to all the four appeals are quite similar, all the appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.2. the appellants are original petitioners who are aggrieved by the orders whereby lands allotted to them had been forfeited and had vested in the government by different orders. certain undisputed facts giving rise to the present litigation are as under :3. special civil application no. 7890 of 2000 was filed by three petitioners on an apprehension that residential plots allotted to them might be forfeited in favour of the government. their apprehension was on account of certain internal communication which had taken place between certain government authorities. at the time when the said petition was filed, no order cancelling the allotment had been passed. during the pendency of the said petition, orders were passed by the taluka development officer, lunawada, whereby the residential plots allotted to them were forfeited in favour of the government. in the circumstances, the petition was amended and three more petitions were also filed by the petitioners for challenging each order passed by the tdo.4. the petitioners had submitted before the concerned government authority in 1981 that they were poor and landless residents of village bakore and in pursuance of their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2001 (HC)

Dolat Industries Vs. Krishna Oil Industries and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-14-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Guj91; (2002)2GLR1836

..... for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it.it may be pointed out that the expression 'any other sufficient .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2001 (HC)

G.H. Prajapati Vs. J.B. Bhatt

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-16-2001

Reported in : (2001)3GLR1891

..... the defence of the appellant in spl. civil suit no. 185 of 1990 for non-compliance of the order passed in connection with civil suit no. 66 of 1995 is patently illegal, erroneous, uncalled for, unwarranted and even without jurisdiction.12. another aspect of the case is that before passing such an order, no show-cause notice appears to have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2001 (HC)

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Ellvina Samualbhai Christian

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-01-2001

Reported in : [2002(92)FLR741]; (2001)3GLR2338

..... orders, therefore, cannot be set aside. the petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. no order as to cost.16. shri k. i. patel requests for time to file letters patent appeal and for continuance of interim order. the request for continuing interim relief is declined.17. petition dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //