Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Page 100 of about 5,310 results (0.031 seconds)

Sep 30 1943 (PC)

Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Shaik Mahaboob Saheb and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1944Mad139; (1943)2MLJ615

..... such courts, whether an appeal actually lies thereunder to the high court or to a civil court subordinate thereto. indeed, reading clause 16 of the letters patent section 3(24) of the general clauses act, 1897, the preamble and sections 3 to 5, civil procedure code, in the light of the privy council decision ..... taken on the construction of section 3 we are not called upon to decide finally which of the two views of clause 16 of the letters patent is correct, we think it right to say that the view first aforementioned commends itself to us. the question of subordination being one of status ..... the suggestion that it is a binding authority by implication on the true construction of section 3 of the code or of clause 16 of the letters patent, where, as here, the question arises with reference to orders passed in exercise of a jurisdiction conferred by a different act,17. though in the ..... judge, however, proceeded to hold, following nilmoni's case that the revenue board was a civil court.within the meaning of clause 16 of the letters patent and subordinate to the high court which is a court of appeal from all the. civil courts of the presidency and that this order was therefore revisable ..... at all, and venkatasubba rao, j., while holding that the revenue board was a ' civil court ' within the meaning of clause 16 of the letters patent following nilmoni's case 4, and that this court had revisional jurisdiction over it as it was subject to its superintendence, dismissed section 3 with the remark .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1928 (PC)

R.K. Abdul Rahim Sahib and Co. and the Official Assignee of Madras Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 110Ind.Cas.606; (1928)54MLJ715

..... jurisdiction under section 7 of the act to decide questions in insolvency where the garnishee lives outside its jurisdiction and that clause 12 of the letters patent does not affect the provisions of clause 18.9. i do not think that the question that the court has a discretionary power to decide ..... therefore, the insolvency court was established by the act and the judges of the supreme court and later the high court were authorised by the letters patent to exercise jurisdiction. under the present act jurisdiction is given by the act and it is to be exercised by the judge assigned by the chief ..... insolvency court, or the court for the relief of insolvent debtors, is not constituted by clause 18 of the letters patent, but that that clause gives one of the judges of the high court the power to exercise jurisdiction under the insolvency act. jurisdiction to grant relief ..... dominions, but it should be noted here that, if the insolvency court has jurisdiction throughout the british dominions, the wording of clause 18 of the letters patent only gives the judge in insolvency power to exercise jurisdiction within the presidency of madras. the point, however, i wish to emphasise is this. the ..... 36 is not controlled by the provisions of the code. he contends that the insolvency court is constituted under clause 18 of the letters patent. i do not agree with him. the court for the relief of insolvent debtors was established by the act of 1848, which was in force .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1928 (PC)

Official Assignee of Madras Vs. G. Ramanujayya

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1928Mad856

..... has jurisdiction under section 7 of the act to decide questions in insolvency where the garnishee lives outside its jurisdiction and that clause 12, letters patent does not affect the provisions of clause 18.10. i do not think that the question that the court has a discretionary power to decide ..... , the insolvency court was established by the act and the judges of the supreme court; and later the high court were authorized by the letters patent to exercise jurisdiction. under the present act jurisdiction is given by the act and it is to be exercised by the judge assigned by the chief ..... insolvency court, or the court for the relief of insolvent-debtors, is not constituted by cl.18, letters patent, but that that clause gives one of the judges of the high court the power to exercise jurisdiction under the insolvency act. jurisdiction to grant relief ..... the british dominions, but it should be noted here that, if the insolvency court has jurisdiction throughout the british dominions, the wording of clause 18, letters patent, only gives the judge in insolvency power to exercise jurisdiction within the presidency of madras. the point, however, i wish to emphasize is this: the ..... that section 36 is not controlled by the provisions of the code. he contends that the insolvency court is constituted under clause 18, letters patent. i do not agree with him. the court for the relief of insolvent debtors was established by the act of 1848, which was in force .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1928 (PC)

Rukmani Ammal Vs. T.S.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1928Mad1169

..... miscellaneous appeal, letters patent appeal and the civil miscellaneous petition.reilly, j.3. whether an order made under rule 66, order 21, of the code, as it now stands, is purely ..... which is nothing more than an administrative order. i do not think the civil miscellaneous appeal lies and so it should be dismissed. it follows that the letters patent appeal should also be dismissed as the original civil miscellaneous appeal was incompetent. there will be a fresh proclamation. one set of costs for all the three civil ..... doubtful and both the learned judges were of opinion that, if necessary, they would refer the question to a full bench. as the decision proceeded upon cl.15, letters patent, they did not think a reference necessary, in narasimha rao v. subbarayudu a.i.r. 1926 mad. 834 phillips and madhavan nair, jj., were inclined to take ..... 2. on these facts the question is whether a civil miscellaneous appeal would lie and if the civil miscellaneous appeal would not lie, it is clear that the letters patent appeal also would not lie. order 21, rule 66, corresponds to section 287 of the old 'civil p.c. with certain modifications. the chief modification is that ..... kumaraswami sastri, j.1. this letters patent appeal arises out of an order refusing stay in c.m.a. 108 of 1928 filed against the order of the subordinate judge in execution under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2001 (HC)

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Department of Sch ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2002Mad195

..... division bench in emmanuel teacher training institute case. 1997 wlr 129. according to the petitioners, the object of the act, guidelines provided by the council and other relevant considerations were patently ignored by the state government.great stress was laid on the observations made in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said decision.5. the learned single judge has accepted the ..... m/s. paul vasanthakumar, g. thilakavathy and subba reddy. generally, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out that the decision of the state government was in patent ignorance of thedivision bench judgment of this court in emmanuel's case, 1997 wlr 129. the learned counsel relied on the various provisions of the act and pointed out that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1953 (HC)

R.M. Seshadri Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by the Chief Sec ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1954Mad543; (1954)IMLJ206

..... the practice of procedure of the courts conferred under section 15 of the charter act. leach j. of the rangoon high court discovered it in clause 35 of the letters patent, rangoon. venkatasubba rao j. found no difficulty in deriving it from section 107(e) of the government of india act, 1915. section 3 of the court-fees act, 1870 assumed ..... presidency of fort william, of the governor general in council, and in madras or bombay of the governor in council of the respective presidencies."article 37 of the amended letters patent for the high court of judicature for the presidency of madras, says :"and we do further ordain that it shall be lawful for the said high court of judicature at ..... then was in 'maung ba thaw v. m. s. v. m. chettiar', air 1935 rang 460 (d) would .extract this power from clause 35 of the letters patent (corresponding to clause 37, madras letters patent). the learned judge did not agree with venkatasubba rao j. in regard to the construction of section 107(e) of the government of india act. notwithstanding the ..... such jurisdiction .... and all such powers .... and power to make rules for regulating the practice of the court, as are vested in them by letters patent, and subject to the provisions of any such letters patent, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as are vested in those courts respectively at the commencement of this act.section 107 : each of the high courts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1988 (HC)

The Proctor and Gamble Company Represented by Power of Attorney Holder ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1989)1MLJ36

..... that of the andhra pradesh high court in p. lakshmikantham v. ramakrishna pictures : air1981ap224 . that is not a case of interlocutory disposal. the letters patent appeals before the bench arose out of final disposals in which infringement of copyright was found and it was observed by the bench that there was no ..... appeal in a case which turned upon where the balance of convenience lay. after pointing out that grant of interlocutory injunctions in actions for infringement of patents is governed by the same principles as in other actions, lord diplock observed as follows: 'my lords, when an application for an interlocutory injunction to ..... neither party would be put to any irreparable damage or loss or prejudice. in that case, the suit was based on an alleged infringement of a patent and the defendant questioned the validity of the grant in favour of the plaintiff. the learned judge observed that an interim injunction will not be granted ..... patent ought not to have been granted under the provisions of section 26 of the patents and designs act, 1911, the court will not interfere by issuing a temporary injunction.10. in hubbard and ..... if the defendant disputes the validity of the grant and if the patent is new and its validity has not been established in a judicial proceeding till then and if it is endeavoured to be shown that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1934 (PC)

Akavande Mulahur Vatakethil Kizhakke Nayar Veetil Karna Vastri Sreedev ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1935Mad71

..... was in dispute. in the circumstances, in my opinion, defendant 2 should not be allowed to raise quite a new point at the hearing of this letters patent appeal, different from the case of the parties in all the earlier stages of this litigation. at p. 53 of krishnan nair v. damodaran nair 1916 ..... and defendant 2).20. that being so, we do not think it right at this stage to allow the defendants to raise a new case in letters patent appeal, namely, that succession in this case should be governed by the principle of propinquity or nearness, and that only plaintiff 1, defendant 1 and defendant ..... was accordingly restored. the learned judge granted leave to appeal, having regard to the importance of the question, and the plaintiffs have preferred this letters. patent appeal. the learned advocate for defendant 2 wanted to raise the question that the principle of propinquity should govern the present case and that the heirs of ..... in second appeal the decision of the learned subordinate judge was set aside and that of the district munsif was restored by curgenven, j. this letters patent appeal is against his judgment. the variations of opinion noted above show that the question whether the partition of tarwad property under the malabar law should be ..... the-above reasons, i think that the division in the present case should be on per capita basis. in my opinion the letters-patent appeal should be allowed, and the decision of the learned subordinate judge restored, with all costs in the high court. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1984 (HC)

Dexter S. Anthony Vs. June P. Anthony and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1985)2MLJ200

..... .m.s.no. l of 1978. the learned judges in the abovesaid three cases have taken into consideration the proviso to clause 35 of the letters patent and the definition of 'court' occurring in section 3(4) of the act and negatived the plea that this court is to exercise concurrent jurisdiction along ..... the district court will not go in conformity with the provision in section 3(4) of the act;5. even in clause 35 of the letters patent there is a provision by which the jurisdiction of the courts not established by the royal charter are preserved. clause 35 is as follows:matrimonial jurisdiction ..... jurisdiction.8. on an analysis of the provisions of act conferring jurisdiction on the high court and the district court and the clause 35 of letters patent i am not able to persuade myself to accept the proposition that the high court and the district court can exercise concurrent jurisdiction in matters arising ..... and 23 taken along with the above definition will indicate that both the courts will have concurrent jurisdiction.3. according to clause 35 of the letters patent the high court is vested with matrimonial jurisdiction throughout the state.7. in support of the petitioner's contention reliance is placed upon the decision of ..... interfered with. if a concurrent jurisdiction is meant, there is no need for the proviso to clause 35 of the letters patent. in the case reported in mrs. kamala nair v. n.p. kumaran nair : air1958bom12 chagle, chief justice, in interpreting clause 35 of the letters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1989 (HC)

Ethirajulu Naidu and anr. Vs. Bole Naidu (Died) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1989)2MLJ357

..... ; and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, as prayed for the learned single judge disallowed costs both in the suit as well as in the appeal.3. in this letters patent appeal, mr. m.r. narayana swamy, learned counsel appearing for defendants 3 and 4 the appellants herein, did not seriously challenge the view of the learned single judge with regard ..... reception of additional evidence and further attacking the credence that could be attached to the additional evidence placed. it is true that the powers of this court under the letters patent are not limited to questions of law alone and it will be open to this court to review even findings of facts in a letters ..... patent appeal from a frist appeal, heard by a learned single judge of this court.5. we shall advert to and examine the factual features, which have emerged from the evidence ..... further prove that they are bona fide purchasers and this element has been demonstrated to be totally lacking. in this view, we are not persuaded to interfere in this letters patent appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. the plaintiff is entitled to costs by in this letters ..... nainar sundaram, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of sengattuvelan, j., in appeal no. 56 of 1978. that appeal, in its turn, was one preferred against the judgment and decree in o. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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