Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Page 90 of about 5,310 results (0.037 seconds)

Apr 30 1929 (PC)

Anumanchi Ramanayya Vs. Thubati Kotayya and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1929)57MLJ398

..... the judge who decided the second appeal granted leave to appeal. this, to our mind, is clear from the provisions of clause (15) of the letters patent. the learned judge having in this case declined to grant leave to appeal, the judgment in second appeal is final. whether the order refusing leave to appeal ..... an order refusing leave could be said to be a 'judgment' for the purpose now under consideration, within the meaning of clause (15) of the letters patent. but we are clear, reading clause (15) as a whole, that the intention of the legislature is that a judgment passed by a single judge in ..... that the order passed by the learned judge refusing leave to appeal in this case should be taken to be a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent, and in support of that position certain decisions of this court were cited to us (tuljram row v. alagappa chettiar i.l.r.(1910) m. ..... 1st february, 1929, and the learned judge when moved by the present appellant has declined to grant leave to appeal under clause (15) of the letters patent. the appellant has preferred this appeal against the said refusal by the learned judge to grant leave to appeal. the question is whether this appeal is maintainable ..... advocate who appeared for the respondent, that no appeal lies from such orders of refusal of leave to appeal.3. clause (1.5) of the letters patent of this high court was recently amended on 3rd november, 1927 and on 12th december, 1928. the effect of these amendments is to declare that no appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1915 (PC)

Attyam Venkatasubbarayadu and anr. and Vs. Sri Rajah Velugoti Govinda,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1917)32MLJ144

..... similar circumstances were entertained. apparently the practice of this high court has been in favour of allowing reviews to be filed in appeals under the letters patent.5. it was pointed out by the judicial committee in ravi veeraragavelu v. venkatanarasimha naidu bahadur 27 m.l.j. 451 that even though a ..... under the code of civil procedure. we are not impressed by this argument. in the first place, decrees are passed in appeals heard under the letters patent only under the code of civil procedure. in the second place clause (b) of section 114 does not require that orders and decrees should have ..... general in council to legislate with a view to supplement omissions in the letters patent. even in this view, we think that by section 117 of the code of civil procedure (act v of 1908) the governor-general in ..... subramania aiyar that this provision would not enable courts, by implication, to supplement the letters patent by importing into them all acts, ejusdem generis, passed by the governor-general in council and that the provision is only intended to empower the governor- ..... fully argued by the learned vakils on either side, we are of opinion that there is no force in the objection : section 44 of the letters patent says that the provisions are subject to the legislative powers of the governor-general in council. as at present advised we are in agreement with mr. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1948 (PC)

In Re: S.M. Nathaniel

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1949CriLJ684

..... the deoisions of a high court exercising original criminal jurisdiction is perhaps attributable to the state of english law on the subject when the letters patent were issued long before the passing of the criminal appeal act, 1907. provincial governments and high courts when consulted upon the bombay government's ..... a high court exercising its original jurisdiction, on the lines contained in the criminal appeal act, 1907 (7 edw. 7. c. 23).the letters patent of the various high courts prohibit appeals in such cases, but provide a restricted power of neview, corresponding to that embodied in section 434, criminal p ..... said that the high court as such did not have appellate criminal jurisdiction before act xxvi [26] of 1943. clause 27 of the letters patent constitutes the high court as a court of criminal appeal, and clause 26 gives the high court appellate jurisdiction even in respect of sentences and ..... appeals against convictions and acquittals on trials held by a high court in the exercise of its original oriminal jurisdiction, notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent of any high court, and with-out prejudice to the provisions of section 4-19, section 7 of that act, inter alia, also declared ..... law relating to the conviction and sentence or acquittal by the high court at ita criminal sessions were as follows: under clause 26, letters patent, there was no appeal to the high court from any sentence or order passed or made in any criminal trial before the courts of original .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1901 (PC)

Durga Prasada Naidu and anr. Vs. Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1901)11MLJ238

..... 8. 244, the order appealed against is a 'decree ' and consequently must be regarded as a judgment within the meaning of article 15 of the letters patent. 9. no doubt, an order determining a question referred to in section 244 is for the purpose of the civil procedure code a decree under the special words of ..... ground that an appeal lies against every order of a single judge except when the right of appeal is curtailed by the legislation subsequent to the letters patent. having regard to the later decisions of the court, we do not think that this very general statement can be accepted as a correct exposition of ..... reported at r. v. r. i.l.r. 14 m. 88 in which this court no doubt entertained an appeal under article 15 of the letters patent against an order from an adjournment made in a matrimonial suit. the question whether the order appealed against was a 'judgment' was not discussed in that case. ..... preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies since the order appealed against is not a judgment within the meaning of article 15 of the letters patent.3. we think the objection is well founded. the order appealed against does not affect the merits of the question between, the parties by determining any ..... the parties by determining a right or liability, and that no appeal, from such an order lies under clause 15 of the letters patent.5. we think this case was rightly decided, and that the decision covers the point raised in the present case. the decision of this court in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1983 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1984)39CTR(Mad)22; [1984]148ITR273(Mad)

..... the assessee had acquired a knowledge of enduring nature. further, apart from the technical know-how supplied by the foreign company and the grant of patent rights, the foreign company has agreed not to manufacture in india any of the scheduled products or to grant or make available to any other person ..... continue to use all information, methods, processes and formulae acquired in pursuance of this agreement so far as the same shall not relate to patents or similar rights owned or controlled by brush in india. provided always that this right shall not apply in the event of this agreement being ..... . upon the termination of the agreement : (a) any licences, permissions, authorities granted by brush in favour of s. s. in respect of any patent or similar rights shall determine and s. s. shall forthwith return to brush all copies of drawings specifications, information and other data in the possession or ..... various clauses of the collaboration agreement dated december 12, 1963. the relevant and important clauses of the agreement are set out below : or under letters patent under which it may be entitled to grant licences; (i) an exclusive licence to manufacture, use and sell during the continuance of this agreement the ..... the amount paid was not an admissible deduction.' in that case, the portion of the fee relatable to the supply of technical know-how, patents and designs was taken as an expense anchored to acquire an asset of a permanent nature and as such held to be capital in nature, but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1980 (HC)

Kalyani Sundaram Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-i, Madras

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1980)16CTR(Mad)201; [1980]126ITR615(Mad)

..... without any protest. 42. there was also a submission that the tax liability should be apportioned among the accountable persons and that this is a patent error in the assessment order. there is no provision brought to our notice which requires this being done by the asst. controller. this submission goes ..... from the record-see sidhramappa andannappa manvi v. cit : [1952]21itr333(bom) .' 35. it follows that the mistake must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning where there may be conceivably two opinions. 36. in the present ..... to the supreme court and it was observed at page 53 : 'a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions......... a ..... and the high court held that the original assessments were prima facie in accordance with law and that, at any rate, there was no obvious or patent mistake in those orders of assessment and that the officer was, therefore, incompetent to pass the order of rectification. the matter was taken on appeal ..... , therefore, m/s. amalgamations pvt. ltd., should not have been treated as an accountable person at all. as this was, according to him, a patent error, it should have been rectified by the asst. controller. 25. the learned counsel for the asst. controller contended that the company was rightly treated as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2003 (HC)

The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India V ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2005]126CompCas83(Mad); 2003CriLJ3468; [2005]63SCL248(Mad)

..... , the prosecutor equally has no right to insist upon that the accused be subjected to an enhanced punishment under the repealed act, based on the decision in re hale's patent reported in (1920) 2 ch 377.14.10. the above dictum, in my considered opinion, is applicable only when a later statute again describes an offence created by an earlier ..... act, i.e., when the essential ingredients of the two offences are different. the position is not the same in the instant case. therefore, the dictum in re hale's patent reported in (1920) 2 ch 377 is not applicable to the facts on hand. 14.11. of course, when a question came for consideration whether the appellate court can extend .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1939 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Voora Sreeramulu Chetty

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1939)2MLJ667

..... m.l.j. 295 : l.r. 50 indap 212 : i.l.r. 47 bom. 724 , that there is no appeal under clause 39 of the letters patent from a decision of the high court in an income-tax matter it must follow that there can be no appeal and no authority for this court to grant a ..... proceedings contemplated by clause 39 of the letters patent. in my opinion this matter is not a final judgment, decree or order within the contemplation of clause 39. since it has been held by their lordships of ..... grant a certificate in this matter permitting an appeal to his majesty in council, and the application is really based upon the provisions of clause 40 of the letters patent. this clause does provide an appeal from a preliminary or interlocutory decision 'as aforesaid.' 'as aforesaid', it is conceded by mr. patanjali sastri refers to the ..... by judges of the high court or of a division court from which an appeal does not lie to the high court under clause 15 of the letters patent. then follows a proviso to the same effect as the provisions of sections 109 and 110 of the code of civil procedure. clause 40 provides that the ..... court has no jurisdiction to grant a certificate under section 66-a(2), but says that it has power to do so under clause 40 of the letters patent. clause 40 has to be read in conjunction with clause 39. clause 39 gives a right of appeal to the privy council in a matter not being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1935 (PC)

M.R. Ananthanarayana Aiyar Vs. Rarichan (Minor) by Guardian Unnooli Al ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1936)70MLJ306

..... the finality of a decision given in the respondent's favour does not of itself make that order a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause is of the letters patent. the same might be said of an order restoring a suit under order 9, rule 9 and with much greater reason. the same might be said of any ..... not a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent although this opinion was come to by rankin, c.j. with some hesitation. dealing with the matter he says on page 144:on the whole and not without ..... it merely allows the proceedings to go on, then it is not a final 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. this decision has been applied in a number of other later cases in the madras high court although not dealing with an order precisely similar to this. the effect ..... 35 mad. 1 : 21 m.l.j. 1 (f.b.) where, on the question as to what is a 'judgment' which under clause 15 of the letters patent is an appealable one, sir arnold white, c.j., laid down the test as,whether its effect is to put an end to the suit or proceeding so far as ..... absolute in accordance with the opinion of the senior judge. from this order an appeal was lodged under clause 15 of the letters patent which was exactly similar to clause 15 of the letters patent of the madras high court. it was there held that the order allowing the second appeal to be presented out of time was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2001 (HC)

V.C. Ramalingam and Sons, Represented by Its Partner V.R. Jagannathan, ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2002]127STC382(Mad)

..... preparations and therefore the classification was based on intelligible differentia, and thus valid. the apex court also pointed out that in the case of arya vaidya pharmacy, while all other patent or proprietory medicinal preparations belonging to different systems of medicines were taxed at 7% only without any classification, arishtams and asavas prepared under the ayurvedic system alone were made subject ..... in the medical literature and that the same was meant to be used under medical advice. affidavits had been produced in that case to show that the product is a patent and proprietary product and that chemists require a valid drug licence to buy, stock and sell the same and that it is sold to customers who come with a prescription .....

Tag this Judgment!


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