Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 2004 Page 4 of about 66 results (0.006 seconds)

Jun 25 2004 (HC)

Patel Scrap Traders Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-25-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Guj13

..... handing over possession/delivery could not arise. despite the clear provisions under the agreement, the liquidator has handed over possession of the premises to the respondent no. 5 which is patently illegal in fact and in law. any document purporting confer title on the respondent no. 4 dehors the agreement of sale is not significance and is completely irrelevant. further it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2004 (HC)

L.M. Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-16-2004

Reported in : (2005)2GLR1235

..... excess pay drawn. the said decision was followed by this court in special civil application no. 6006 of 2002 decided on 28th january 2003.18.4 this court in letters patent appeal no. 578 of 2000 decided on 4-4-2001 held as under:for the reasons aforesaid, we partly allow this appeal. the impugned order dated 25-1-2000 passed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2004 (HC)

Virendrakumar Jayantilal Ganatra Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-01-2004

Reported in : (2005)1GLR187

..... 'dismiss' and has held that the concerned employee of that case was dismissed from the service for the alleged misconduct of remaining absent. the division bench also in the letters patent appeal no. 652 of 2002 filed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single judge, on 2/7/2002, has held that when there is order of dismissal, the procedure .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2004 (HC)

Rohit Chunubhai Mehta Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-17-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ2298; (2004)3GLR1952

..... justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. these are not cases where no case is made out or where the allegations were patently absurd. as held by this court in k.c.sethi v. state of gujarat [2003 (1) glh 82], truthfulness of allegations is a matter of trial and real state of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2004 (HC)

Gujarat State Co-op. Agri and Rural Develop Bank Ltd. Vs. Yoginiben An ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-14-2004

Reported in : (2004)2GLR698

..... in accordance with rule 33 (1)(b) of the bombay civil services rules, 1959 and that had not been done while terminating the service of the respondent of that letters patent appeal who was a temporary servant. the division bench held that the termination was bad in law and the aforesaid rule was fully applicable. while deciding the said appeal the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2004 (HC)

Ajanbhai Ladhabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-24-2004

Reported in : (2004)3GLR1882

..... of the impugned order of the special land acquisition officer, palanpur and the provisions of general clauses act, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is palpably and patently illegal.3. it is an admitted fact and it is also manifest from the impugned order that the application under section 28-a of the act could not be filed ..... factual scenario and the legal profile, the application is required to be allowed quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the special land acquisition officer as it suffers from patent illegality and serious misinterpretation. the petition therefore, shall stand allowed. rule made absolute, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. direct service permitted.

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2004 (HC)

Kamdar Ladat Simiti of Nanikram Shobraj Mills Ltd. and Asso. Uni. Vs. ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-17-2004

Reported in : [2005]125CompCas740(Guj); (2005)1GLR166; [2004]56SCL409(Guj)

..... in case of shree visnagar taluka audhyogik sahakari mandali v. district registrar (industries) & others in special civil application no. 820 of 2003 decided on 31/1/2003 confirmed in letters patent appeal no.134 of 2003 dated 10/2/2003.9. mr. r. d. dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of general workers union submitted that the orders of the board .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2004 (HC)

Sureshkumar Ramshakal Pandey Vs. Municipal Commissioner

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-18-2004

Reported in : [2004(102)FLR1169]; (2004)IIILLJ798Guj

..... , in any case, be less than the minimum wages in respect of the period from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement. the latter judgment in letters patent appeal no. 1319 of 2003 relied upon the aforesaid earlier judgment and held that when the payment under section 17-b of the act was to be made, the worker ..... as the minimum wages. this view was sought to be supported by the aforesaid judgment of this court in letters patent appeal no. 358 of 2002, wherein the judgment of the supreme court in dena bank (supra) was not referred and the order to pay minimum wages was made on the ..... relief is not taken away.4. in view of the above clear position of law, the view taken in the aforesaid judgments of this court in letters patent appeal no. 358 of 2002 and letters patent appeal no. 1319 of 2003, to the extent and to the effect that the workman is, under section 17-b of the act, entitled to minimum ..... the industrial disputes act, 1947 (the 'act' for short).2. the contention on behalf of the workmen was that, as decided by this court in letters patent appeal no. 358 of 2002 and letters patent appeal no. 1319 of 2003, the workman was entitled to, during pendency of the proceedings against an award of reinstatement, wages, as were payable to the workman .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2004 (HC)

Krunal Oil Marketing Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-18-2004

Reported in : [2005]142STC366(Guj)

..... of the petitioner shall be cancelled.4. mr. s.n. soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that both the orders at annexures 'a' & 'b' are patently without jurisdiction in light of the judgment of this court in the case of giriraj sales corporation v. state of gujarat in special civil application no. 2648 of 1996 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2004 (HC)

Ninaben J. Andhariya Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-08-2004

Reported in : (2004)3GLR583

..... . he submitted that issuance of such clarification which is not in line with the decision of this court, which was confirmed by the division bench of this court in letters patent appeal no.209 of 1993 on 28.04.1993, be viewed very seriously and it should be considered as an act amounting to contempt of court.11. mr. rao, the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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