Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: allahabad Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 80 results (0.007 seconds)

Apr 06 2004 (HC)

In Re: Bharat Explosives Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-06-2004

Reported in : [2005]58SCL370(All)

..... appearing at pages 104 and 105 of the paper book arc as follows:'2.1 all the properties, rights and claims whatsoever of bepl and its entire undertakings, trade marks, patents, permits, quotas authorities, privileges, various exemptions/incentives granted under different schemes of state/central government, licences including the existing industrial licence for manufacturing and/or carrying on of its business .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2004 (HC)

Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs. R.K. Singh and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-19-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2414

..... expressed in sheo charan (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the present special appeal is also not maintainable under clause 10 of the letters patent read with chapter viii, rule 5 of the rules.41. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, as not maintainable without any order as to costs. ..... judge rejecting the application for contempt and refusing to punish for contempt amounted to a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 10 of the letters patent. to answer this query, the question to be decided is as to whether such an order would determine any right or liability of the parties ..... scc 8, this aspect to ascertain as to whether a particular order is 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 10 or clause 15 of the letters patent has been considered. at page 77 of shah babulal khimji's case (supra), the hon'ble supreme court observed thus :'..........................................................in my opinion, an exhaustive ..... under section 19 of the act, since it did not impose any punishment yet the appeal would be maintainable under clause 10 of the letters patent as the direction issued by the learned single judge regarding preparation of a seniority list and promotion being given in terms thereof would be a ..... even if an appeal does not lie under section 19(1) of the act, an appeal is still maintainable under clause 10 of the letters patent read with chapter viii. rule 5 of the rules as the instant appeal has been categorised as special appeal.30. let us, therefore, consider .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2004 (HC)

Indian Oil Corporation Limited and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-27-2004

Reported in : AIR2004All277; [2004]137STC399(All)

..... general revenue.45. moreover, it has been observed in the seven judge bench decision of the supreme court in automobile transport limited case (supra) (vide paragraph 19).'..................... and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing facilities.'46. the above observation clearly implies that while it is true as pointed out by the two judge bench of the ..... a tax is compensatory or not is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying _not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities.' 36. similarly in atiabari tea company limited v. state of assam (supra) it has been observed by the five judge ..... a tax is compensatory or not is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities. it would be impossible to judge the compensatory nature of a tax by a meticulous test and in the nature .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2004 (HC)

Dinesh Kumar Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-28-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2361

..... the petitioner and sri ajit kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent tenant.8. in my view, the orders of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority are patently erroneous and based upon surmises and conjectures and are liable to be quashed. both the courts below have been swayed by the fact that the tenant is doing the business .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (HC)

Uttar Pradesh Ganna Sodh Parishad Genda Singh Ganna Evam Anushandhan S ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

Reported in : [2004(101)FLR827]; (2004)2UPLBEC1731

..... ? undoubtedly it is. its discoveries are valuable contributions to the wealth of the nation. such discoveries may be sold for a heavy price in the industrial and innovations may be patented and sold. in our scientific and technological age nothing has more cash value, as intangible goods and invaluable services, than discoveries. for instance, the discoveries of thomas alva edison made ..... of section 2 (j) of the industrial disputes act as it involves collaboration between the employer and the employee for the advancement of the technology and technical innovation which are patented and sold but the apex court has itself explained the judgment of the bangalore water supply and sewerage board in the case of physical laboratory which is directly on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2004 (HC)

Committee of Management, Sri Bajrani Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya an ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-01-2004

Reported in : (2005)2UPLBEC1374

..... rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies, had b.ed. candidates been excluded from the selections. the impugned judgment of the division bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. the t.t.c. candidates before us a appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. the impugned judgment of the division bench, therefore, deserves ..... departure was made in considering the b.ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of t.t.c. candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue, the recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of t.t.c. and b.ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2004 (HC)

Radhey Shyam Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-10-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ESC188; (2005)2UPLBEC1181

..... cannot purport to reach final conclusions, for that again would be the province of the industrial tribunal.therefore, while conceding a very limited jurisdiction to the state government to examine patent frivolousness of the demands, it is to be understood as a rule, that adjudication of demands made by workmen should be left to the tribunal to decide.'14. ram avtar ..... the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under section 10(1) read with section 12(5), or not. if the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the appropriate government may refuse to make a reference.likewise, if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2004 (HC)

Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-26-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1639; (2004)2UPLBEC1870

..... lost sight of the fact that the rules. 1974 have been framed with good intent and purpose and intention of the legislature while prescribing period of five years is too patent considering that compassionate appointment is need based and not a vested right. the courts cannot confer any benediction simply on sympathetic consideration and are called upon to find out whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2004 (HC)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Zafar Ibrahim and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-31-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2566

..... occasioning failure of justice.15. in view of the findings of facts recorded by the two courts below, i do not find it a case of jurisdictional error or any patent error in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedures or principles of natural justice. after following the decision referred to by the petitioner. i am of the view .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2004 (HC)

Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-28-2004

Reported in : 2004(174)ELT422(All)

..... products the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of notification no. 15/94-c.e., dated 1-3-1994.23. this view of the tribunal is in our opinion patently erroneous and contrary to the decision of the five member larger bench of the tribunal as well as three member bench of the tribunal, and is also contrary to the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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