Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.56 seconds)
Maheshbhai Punjabhai Thakor vs Pramod Trading Company & Anr. ... on 20 October, 2015 cites

Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd vs Kailashben R Valand on 17 December, 2013

4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record this Court finds that, while recording the order sought to be reviewed, this Court had taken note of the decision in the case of Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. versus Kailashben R. Valand reported in 2014(2) GLR 1264, which was after considering the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Tue Oct 27 00:27:29 IST 2015 C/MCA/730/2015 ORDER in the case of Paradip Port Trust (supra). Reference can be made to Para : 4 of the decision dated 17.10.2014. Further, the facts noted in the order dated 17.10.2014 are kept in view and considering the totality, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India as relied by learned advocate for the applicant will not take his case any further.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

J.B. Transport Company And Ors. vs Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel on 22 July, 1998

3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Tue Oct 27 00:27:29 IST 2015 C/MCA/730/2015 ORDER is quite clear and therefore there was no occasion for the Labour Court to grant sanction ignoring the objection of the respondent and therefore Labour Court has not committed any error. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the case of J.B.Transport Company vs. Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel in Special Civil Application No.2687 of 1998 dated 22.07.1998 as confirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1101 of 1998 vide order dated 09.12.1998. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 12 - S D Pandit - Full Document

Veer Textile vs Babubhai Sahidbhai on 17 September, 2014

4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, the petitioner is a small trader. He cannot be expected to have any officer in his organisation looking after legal affairs, nor it is mandatory for him to be a member of some Association which may represent his case. Denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to put his case before the Court through an Advocate, in the present case, has resulted in a situation where he is unable to put his case as effectively as respondent would be, and this has resulted in inequality before law, the correcting measure of which was envisaged by enacting Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Tue Oct 27 00:27:29 IST 2015 C/MCA/730/2015 ORDER Section 36(4) of the Act, and under these circumstances the petitioner needs to be given the opportunity of availing the service of an Advocate. Further, the controversy in this regard is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kailashben R. Valand reported in 2014 (2) GLR 1264 and in the case of Veer Textile vs. Babubhai and ors. Upadhyay in Special Civil Application No. 3547 of 2014 dated 17.09.2014. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, denial of opportunity to the petitioner to put his case through an Advocate has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to a party to the litigation to put his case before the Court as compared to the contesting party. It is this situation which needs to be corrected by this Court. For this reason, this petition needs to be allowed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - P Upadhyay - Full Document
1