Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: allahabad Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 34 results (0.007 seconds)

Nov 21 2002 (HC)

Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-21-2002

Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC496

..... in lokmat newspapers pvt. ltd. v. shankar prasad : (1999)iillj600sc . stated that 'if a single judge exercises jurisdiction under article 22, letters patent appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under article 227 it will not be maintainable'. but with an explanation that if the single ..... division courts thereof shall, with the necessary modifications apply in relation to the new high court................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17. as from the appointed day-(a) the letters patent of her majesty, dated the 17th march, 1866, establishing the high court of judicature for the north-western provinces and chapter ii of the ..... legislative council. clause 35 is extracted below :-'35. and we do further ordain and declare that all the provisions of these our letters patent are subject to the legislative powers of the governor general in legislative council, and also of the governor general in council under section seventy- ..... labour court is fully maintainable under chapter viii, rule 5 of the court. elaborating his submissions. dr. padia contended that under clause 10 of letters patent of allahabad high court special appeal is maintainable even against award of labour court. reliance has been placed by dr. padia on apex court judgment in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2002 (HC)

Smart Chip Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-03-2002

Reported in : AIR2003All80

..... protect and encourage the indian business class viz-a-vis the foreign business class. hence, the grant of the contract in question to a patent holder of a foreign corporation goes against the spirit of article 19(1)(g) and the tender conditions appear to be directed to create monopoly ..... party viz. the respondent no. 3 which is the sole value added reseller of drexler technology or corporation, usa which has got propriety and sole patent right for the optical technology worldwide. in our opinion, the whole effort of the state government was to benefit the respondent no. 3 which ..... allotted to value added reseller. it is alleged that the system of distribution of products fully patented as per the us patent law and wto agreement is bound to create 100 vendor dependence of the states and therefore create a monopoly in favour of such ..... guidelines. 20. in paragraph 29 of the writ petition it is alleged that laser card corporation, a 100 subsidiary company of drexier technology corporation, patent holder of smart optical card technology in usa. distributes its products to the end-users through sole value added resellers system in the territory defined/ ..... the writ petition it is alleged that the technology for optical card is proprietary of one drexier technology corporation of usa which is the sole patent rights holder worldwide. a profile of the drexier technology corporation of usa is annexure p-10 to the writ petition. the laser card system .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2002 (HC)

Shyam Charan Lal Vs. Ram Gopal Gupta

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-05-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC489

..... as well as comparative hardships.14. this court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction normally does not interfere with the findings of fact unless such findings are shown to be patently illegal or perverse. no illegality or perversity has been committed by authorities below in recording the said findings of fact on the questions of bond fide need and comparative hardships ..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. the question that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2002 (HC)

Ram Shanker Gupta Alias Pappoo Vs. Additional District and Sessions Ju ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-16-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1376

..... recorded by the appellate authority on consideration of material on record. this court normally does not interfere with the said findings of facts unless such findings are shown to be patently illegal or perverse. no illegality or perversity has been shown in the said findings recorded by the appellate authority in the impugned order dated 17.10.2002.26. it is ..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. 15. the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

Khalilur Rahman Vs. Smt. Noor Jahan Alias Noori

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2232

..... facts are normally not interfered with by this court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india unless such findings are shown to be patently illegal or perverse. no illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the authorities below. therefore, no interference is called for with the findings of facts recorded ..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. 25. the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2002 (HC)

Akhilesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Agarwal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-04-2002

Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3106

..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record.'5. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2002 (HC)

Dr. Nilambhar Jha Vs. Special Judge/Additional District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-10-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC684

..... not ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court issatisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. 15. the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2002 (HC)

Radhey Shyam Vs. Ishwari Prasad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-09-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC687

..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. 15. the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2002 (HC)

Vinesh Kumar Vs. Saghir Ahmad

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-30-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC736

..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record.15. the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2002 (HC)

Kashful Huda Vs. Additional District Judge (Court No. 2) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-28-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1235

..... below are normally not interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india unless such findings are shown to be patently illegal or perverse. the high court cannot sit as a court of appeal while exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india.53. in view of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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