Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 2004 Page 7 of about 66 results (0.005 seconds)

Apr 16 2004 (HC)

O.L. of Aryodaya Spg. and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Charansingh Dhups ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-16-2004

Reported in : [2005]125CompCas765(Guj); [2004]56SCL133(Guj)

..... brought to a close. if a suit has to be filed it is implicit therein that it will have to go through the gamut of an appeal, second appeal, letters patent appeal and appeal to the supreme court. winding-up proceedings would drag on interminably over decades with consequent hardship to everyone. in order to avoid this situation, sub-sections (2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2004 (HC)

Suraiya Mohammed Ikbal GulamhussaIn Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-04-2004

Reported in : (2005)2GLR1033

..... evidence. the said panchnama and evidence recorded by mr. rana which have been wrongly admitted and treated as part of evidence, is not only procedural illegality but it is a patent illegality and the finding arrived at by the learned trial court and confirmed by the appellate court can be said to have been faulty and based on facts which cannot .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2004 (HC)

Pathan Umravkhan Amirkhan Vs. Shakinaben W/D. Umravmiya

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-02-2004

Reported in : (2004)3GLR489

1. widow shakinaben and her sons - original petitioners had filed special civil application no. 7239 of 1989 before this court under article 227 of the constitution of india, with following prayers made in para: 21 of the petition:(a) to quash and set aside the order of the mamlatdar and alt dtd.23.10. 1984 at annexure:c, and the order of the gujarat revenue tribunal passed in ten. b.a. 446 of 1985 dtd. 5.8.1988 at annexure:e, and also the order of the gujarat revenue tribunal in review application no. ten. c.a. 43/88 dtd. 21.7.1989 at annexure:f.(b) to confirm the judgment and order of the deputy collector, kheda dtd. 20.5.1985 in tenancy appeal no. 628 of 1984 at annexure:d, and(c) to dismiss the application filed by the respondent under sec. 70-b of the act, and(d) to remand the case to decide according to law.'2. before the learned single judge, on behalf of the original petitioners, it was submitted that the learned mamlatdar and alt, thasra, had wrongly allowed the application of the respondent by his order dated 23.10.1984, therefore, it was rightly set aside in appeal filed by them before deputy collector on 28.5.1985. but, the gujarat revenue tribunal (for short 'tribunal') wrongly allowed the revision application of the respondent and quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned deputy collector by its order dated 5.8.1988. it was submitted that the learned tribunal ought not to have exercised its revisional jurisdiction in favour of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2004 (HC)

State of Gujarat Vs. Sankalchand P. Vachheta Since Deceased Through Hi ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-29-2004

Reported in : (2004)3GLR1983

b. j. shethna, j. 1. all these matters are disposed of by this common judgment and order, as common point is involved in all these matters. all these appeals are arising out of the judgments and orders passed by k. r. vyas, j., in special civil applications and misc. civil applications, filed in special civil applications.2. learned advocate general shri shelat appearing with learned a.g.p. shri p. r. abichandani for the appellants submitted that the appellant - state of gujarat and competent authority and the deputy collector (u.l.c.) were required to file all these appeals against the orders passed by the learned single judge in writ petitions whereby the learned single judge of this court disposed of all the writ petitions on the point of possession. he submitted that due to the connivance of the officials of the government and the, who appeared in the writ petitions, with the original petitioners the government has suffered loss running into crores of rupees as it has lost thousands of acres of valuable lands worth crores of rupees which were already vested in the government and the possession thereof was already taken over since long. learned advocate general also stated at the bar that because of dereliction of duty the government had also issued notices to the concerned, and thereafter, they were sacked as in view of the above serious allegations, we have heard learned advocate general shri shelat and other learned counsel for the respondents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2004 (HC)

Jivraj Mehta Smarak Trust Sanchalit Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-26-2004

Reported in : [2004(102)FLR828]; (2004)3GLR2628; (2004)IIILLJ990Guj

jayant patel, j.1. rule. mr.mehta waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. with the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. the present petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the warrant issued by the pf authorities dated 30.10.03 for recovery of amount as per order dated 24.9.00 passed under section 7a of employees provident fund and misc.provisions act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').3. heard ms.nanavaty for the petitioner and mr. mehta for the respondent.4. it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal against the order under section 7a dated 2.4.91 is preferred before the appellate tribunal under act and the application for waiver of condition of the pre-deposit of 75% was made and below the said application the presiding officer of the tribunal had passed order, dated 26.6.03 whereby the appellant was directed to deposit amount of 40%. ms. nanavaty has submitted that the amount of 40% is already deposited and the said amount comes to rs.5,29,792/- and as such the said amount is more than 40% of rs.11,17,950/- against which the appeal is preferred. she, therefore, submitted that the authority is not justified in issuing warrant. in ca no. 920/04 it has been further contended that the bank account is freezed by the pf authority and as a result thereof the petitioner is unable to operate the bank account. she also submitted that the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2004 (HC)

Aop of Sanjaybhai R. Patel and 11 ors. Vs. Assessing Officer - Asstt. ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : [2004]267ITR129(Guj)

..... mistake apparent from the record of assessments of the firm. the hon'ble supreme court has further held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. a decision on a debatable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 2004 (HC)

Jayantilal Sanubhai Tailor Vs. Ralchem Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-05-2004

Reported in : (2005)2GLR1218

..... the applicant, jayantilal sanubhai tailor, on or before 6th october, 2004. it is reported that this order directing the office to pay the amount is challenged by filing a letters patent appeal and stay is granted.2. mr. r.p. mankad, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, submitted that he is pressing for the relief, prayed for in clause 6(b ..... of this court (coram: r.k. abichandani & k.m. mehta, jj.) in the matter of akbarkhan m. pathan v. general manager in civil application no.5486 of 2003 in letters patent appeal no.933 of 1999, wherein the division bench has observed in paragraph-5 as under:'5. in our opinion, in the present case, in view of the undertaking having .....

Tag this Judgment!

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