Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: allahabad Year: 1979 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.008 seconds)

Aug 10 1979 (HC)

Sheo Varan Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-10-1979

Reported in : AIR1980All92

..... the mines which were in possession of the petitioner. in a case where an order or award is made by an expert tribunal, this court should not interfere unless a patent error was pointed out. no such error could be suggested. the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the amount on the ground argued orally before us, strengthens our conclusion ..... a grower or lessor on the working of the property leased, or otherwise on the profits of the grant or lease, the word is specially used in reference to mines, patents and copyrights'.21. 'dead rent', however, is a rent payable whether mines be worked or not. in halsbury's laws of england, vol. 26, third edition, pages 430 and 435 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1979 (HC)

Parshottam Lal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-18-1979

Reported in : AIR1979All279

..... doubt that if the revision is allowed, the petitioner would be a person who will have suffered a legal grievance.9. we therefore, hold that the tribunal has committed a patent error of law in not permitting the impleadment of the petitioner as an opposite party in the revision,10. in the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. the order ..... inthe revision as a matter of right. 7. having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order passed by the tribunal is patently unsustainable in law.'section 64-a of the aforesaid act reads as follows: '64-a. revision. -- the state transport appellate tribunal may, either on its own motion or on an ..... the tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is erroneous in law, having been passed by the tribunal on a patent misapprehension of the true legal position, as regards right or interest of the petitioner. learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the second proviso to section 64 of the motor vehicles .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sheela Devi Goel

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-04-1979

Reported in : (1980)16CTR(All)127; [1981]132ITR517(All)

..... glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. prima facie, it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment act. but such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction, about the retrospective operation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1979 (HC)

Chandra Metal Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-20-1979

Reported in : [1979]119ITR279(All)

..... .4. mr. gulati, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that it is well settled that for purposes of section 154 of the act it is only an obvious and patent mistake apparent on the face of the record which could be rectified. in support of this contention, he placed reliance on raja hari chand raj singh v. cit : [1978]114itr727 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1979 (HC)

Chhotey Lal Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-02-1979

Reported in : AIR1979All135

..... , held that the reservation of 68% directed by the impugned order' was plainly inconsistent with article 15(4).36. their lordships added fpara 35) that 'an executive action which is patently and plainly outside the limits of the constitutional authority conferred on the state in that behalf is struck down as being ultra vires the states' authority. if, on the other ..... hand, the executive action does not patently or overtly transgress the authority conferred on it by the constitution, but the transgression is covert or latent the said action is struck down as being a fraud on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1979 (HC)

Kedar Lal Verma Vs. the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermedia ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-27-1979

Reported in : AIR1980All32

..... the present promissory estoppel cannot be taken advantage of if there would have been some technical deficiency or irregularity, the matter would have been different. but where the candidate is patently disentitled to be declared successful, the authorities may not be disentitled to correct the mistake. as a general thing, an act or representation made through innocent mistake is not a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1979 (HC)

Chhotey Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-24-1979

Reported in : 1980CriLJ583

..... the letters patent or other instrument constituting such high court...11. the above observations clearly make out that section 369 of the old code was not confined in its application to the judgments ..... code of ... or any provision of any other law in force, in the case of the high court it is provided that the prohibition will be subject to the letters patent or other instrument constituting such high court. thus so far as the high court is concerned, the prohibition against alteration and the review of the judgment will be subject to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 1979 (HC)

Jag NaraIn and anr. Vs. Ram Dularay and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-03-1979

Reported in : AIR1979All71

..... be held to have acquiesced in that condition. here also the answer to this agreement is the same as above because there cannot be acquiescence to a position which is patently against the provisions of law. 16. the above observations certainly go to show that there can be no acquiescence or estoppel against a statute. we have mentioned above that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1979 (HC)

Municipal Board Vs. Smt. Chandrawati

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-04-1979

Reported in : AIR1979All101

..... was of the board to pay up her arrears of pay. the board remained silent. therefore, the respondent had to file the suit on 1-1-1963. it is thus patent that on account of the omission of the appellant to give the salary of smt janki devi that the respondent was obliged to file the suit. in other words because .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1979 (HC)

Jamboo Parasad JaIn Vs. Smt. Malti Prabha and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-24-1979

Reported in : AIR1979All260

..... . of the court. there was a special appeal and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision on merits before another learned single judge. thereafter, there was a letters patent appeal which was decided on 3-4-1975. so by the time the appeal was decided almost 9 years had elapsed between the re-marriage and the date of appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

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