Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (3.23 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... vs Union Of India on 29 June, 2018

Sarine Technologies Ltd Through ... vs Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation ... on 31 January, 2020

7.6 While referring to the reply at page 370, he has contended that it is a case of the plaintiff that cause of action has arosen partly in Surat i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. According to him, the reply of the plaintiff depicts that the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of India/subsidiary company of the defendant. According to him, this fact suggests that the plaintiff is knowing that no cause of action has arisen against the present defendant. Mr.Niraj Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to allow present petition and to set aside the impugned order and prayed that the application filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC may be allowed. He has relied on the decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Union of India delivered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.737 of 2018 decided on 7.5.2018, especially paragraphs 6.5, 8.4, 9 and 13, which read as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin vs Dilipbhai Bhaktiprasad Doshi on 19 September, 2022

C/SCA/17745/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2022 4.6 Relying on a decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Union of India, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 737 of 2018, wherein plaintiff was refused permission to produce certain documents merely on the ground that those documents were not produced along with the plaint and that Order VII rule 14(3) of "the Code" shall not be applicable to the commercial Court proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act as also on the ground of delay, this Court permitted the production thereof as grave injustice was likely to be caused to the party producing the documents, if denied production thereof. Much emphasis is laid in concluding part of para 14 that documents, unless they are doubtful or manufactured, as recorded therein, Court should not generally deny leave to produce documents, as it is always open to the other side to cross examine the party, who produces the documents, to establish that the said documents are not relevant or that the case based on the said documents is not true.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - U A Trivedi - Full Document

Ikon Associates vs M/S Gopinath Enterprise Private ... on 2 August, 2022

In case of State of Gujarat vs. Union of India, passed in Special Civil Application No.737 of 2018 the question which was raised before the Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was whether Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act affects the powers of the High Court under Article 227 Page 85 of 146 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 22:34:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/20148/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2022 of the Constitution of India.
Gujarat High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Kandla Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Doosan Heavy Industries And ... on 18 July, 2018

10. In view of the above discussion, it is observed and held that the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, against the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Rajkot, shall not be maintainable. However, considering the request made by Shri Modh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and considering the fact that the issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, Rajkot, would be a pure question of law and it is with respect to the jurisdiction, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Union of India (supra), a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and therefore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is permitted to convert the present First Appeal into a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Registry is directed to register the present First Appeal as Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by giving a separate, new number accordingly.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

Maharshi Packaging Machines Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Maharshi Udyog Thru Partner, ... on 13 December, 2018

3.1 Learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited the Courts attention to the order passed by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application No.737 of 2018 in which the writ petition taken out under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was entertained containing the challenge to the interlocutory order despite their being statutory provision under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Amit Suresh Bhatnagar vs Nageshwar Steels - A Partnership Firm on 28 January, 2019

2. It is not in dispute that so far as prayer 9A which reads as under, the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 737 of 2018 on 07.05.2018 ( State of Gujarat vs. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1515) has upheld Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 as ultra vires by reading down the provisions and writ petition would be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and bar contained under Section 8 of the above Act against entertainability of "Civil Revision Application or petition" against the interlocutory orders passed by the subordinate/commercial Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/11639/2017 ORDER courts shall not be applicable to the writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - A S Dave - Full Document

Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs Ultrabulk A/S on 26 August, 2019

13. The record clearly indicates that the petitioner has participated before the English Commercial Court and has not contended or objected that it is not a commercial dispute. Even independently examining the same, the Commercial Court at Rajkot has come to the conclusion that it is a commercial dispute and that Commercial Court at Rajkot, now at Jamnagar has inherent Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 28 22:04:19 IST 2019 C/SCA/8334/2019 CAV ORDER jurisdiction to try and decide the execution petition filed by the respondent. Even considering the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat (supra), the Commercial Court, Rajkot has rightly exercised the jurisdiction and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no error much less any error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings nor a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned in the case on hand. On the contrary, the record indicates that having filed objections under section 13 of the CPC before the Commercial Court at Rajkot, only with an aim and object to delay the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed the present application exhibit 19 and on its dismissal, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Bamania Suryakant Bhanjibhai vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2019

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) Subject matter qua the challenge in the writ petitions is no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court in Special Civil Application No. 737 of 2018 on 07.05.2018 ( State of Gujarat vs. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1515). Both these petitions are therefore disposed of with a liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law with regard to other grievances.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Marsons Limited, vs Navkar Transcore Private Limited on 28 January, 2019

In view of the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this court in Special Civil Application No. 737 of 2018 on 07.05.2018 ( State of Gujarat vs. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1515), challenge to Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 that it is ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India no more survives and accordingly considering the subject writ petition and other prayers, Registry is directed to place the matters before the court taking up such matters.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Sangam Prints Private Limited vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2019

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of decision dated 07.05.2018 rendered in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1515] [Special Civil Application No.737 of 2018], prayer in terms of para 13[A] does not survive and for adjudication of issue involved in the petition along with other prayers, the Registry is directed to place this petition before the appropriate Court taking up such matters, as per the Roster notified.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document
1