Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Page 98 of about 5,310 results (0.030 seconds)

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!

Apr 08 2005 (HC)

N. Vasudevan and T.G. Gurunathan Vs. the Recovery Officer Drt Ii and o ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : I(2006)BC390; 2005(3)CTC389; (2005)2MLJ624

..... symbolical delivery and not actual delivery and the auction purchaser is entitled only to symbolical delivery and not actual possession. it is further held that under clause 15 of letters patent, recovery officer lacked jurisdiction totally in passing order of eviction which order suffers from error apparent on the face of record.8. the learned counsel for the second respondent punjab .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1928 (PC)

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

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 114Ind.Cas.652

..... civil miscellaneous appeal, letters patent appeal and the civil miscellaneous petition.reilly, j.5. whether an order made under rule 66 of order xxi of the code as it now stands, is ..... is nothing more than an administrative order.4. 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 ..... both the learned judges were of opinion that, if necessary, they would refer the question to a full bench. as the decision proceeded upon clause 15 of the letters patent they did not think a reference necessary. in arukapalli narasimha rao v. arumilli subbarayudu : (1926)51mlj135 , phillips and madhavan nair, jj., were inclined to take the ..... . 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 xxi, rule 66, corresponds to section 287 of the old code of civil procedure with certain modifications. the chief modification is ..... kumaraswami sastriar, j.1. this letters patent appeal arises out of an order refusing stay in c.m.a. no. 108 of 1928 filed against the order of the subordinate judge in .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 1973 (HC)

Anthony Servai Vs. Pethi Naicker and ors. and Kulandama Naicker (Died) ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1974)2MLJ19

..... holder's father's son's grand-daughter. mookandi and palavesam are the last male holder's father's father's son's sons). therefore the letters patent appeal has to be dismissed.25. the result is, second appeal no. 1076 of 1970 is allowed and second appeal no. 1088 of 1970 is dismissed. ..... was not binding on the reversioners after the death of somu ammal. that suit had been decreed. somu ammal died on 22nd march, 1966.24. the letters patent appeal arises out of o.s. no. 299 of 1966 filed by shanmugasundarathammal, the plaintiff, who claims to be the nearest reversioner entitled to succeed to ..... 1st defendant getting the value of improvements does not arise as the plaintiffs are not entitled to possession of the property.23. the facts in the letters patent appeal are as follows : the last male holder is one sudalaimuthu. he had two brothers by name enamuthu and shanmugam. the father of the last male ..... force of the act, died after the commencement of the act. as the question that arises in the two second appeals as well as in the letters patent appeal is one and the same, they were heard together.5. in the two second appeals, admittedly the two plaintiffs would be the nearest reversioners of ..... of opinion regarding this question in the two decisions of the supreme court referred to above and that is why the reference has been made.4. letters patent appeal no. 6 of 1972 arises out of a different matter turning on a similar question. that is against the decision of ramanujam, j., in second .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1926 (PC)

Vaithilinga Pandara Sannidhi Audhinakarthar Tiruvaduthurai Adhinam Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1926Mad826

..... seemed to be a clear case in which, for the purpose of effectually and and completely adjudicating upon and settling all questions involved with regard to the patent right of the plaintiff, it was not only proper but necessary that this other patentee should have been added as party defendant. but the court of ..... and lord justice kay at pages 491 and 492 (1 ch.) observes as follows:no doubt the judgment in the present case may indirectly affect montfort's patent ; but the answer to that is that whether it would affect it or not, this rule does not apply to such a case. montfort says that ..... is the question involved in this action? the question, and the only question, is whether what marsden is doing is an infringement of the plaintiff's patent.16. and again, later on, that eminent judge says:can it be said that the rule prevents the plaintiff from proceeding against a defendant without having to ..... that case the plaintiff, the patentee of a machine, brought the action against the defendant for using a machine which he alleged was an infringement of his patent. one mont-forts, the maker and patentee of the defendant's machine, applied to be added as defendant alleging that the judgment in the action would ..... rule already referred to this was such a case. there was a defendant, who, when sued by the plaintiff for infringement of a patent right, sought to justify his action on the patent right of a third party ; and if the terms of 01. 2 of e. 10 should be taken absolutely as contended for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1967 (HC)

Achammal and anr. Vs. N. Krishna Naidu and ors. (No. 2)

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1969)1MLJ127

..... is section 96 of the civil procedure code and the letters patent, with leave of the judge disposing of the second appeal. section 67 (2) will apply only to such cases. it is true that the appeal filed under order ..... .a. no. 369 of 1964) was remanded not in second appeal or letters patent appeal but in an appeal filed in this court under order 43, rule 1 (a) of the civil procedure code. the provision for filing a second appeal in this court ..... court and will not apply. it is, therefore, enough to consider sub-section (2) which reads thus:where an appeal is remanded in second appeal or letters patent appeal for a fresh decision by the lower appellate court, the high court remanding the appeal may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of ..... remand is in second appeal, and of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal and the memorandum of letters patent appeal if the remand is in letters patent appeal.2. it will be seen that this provision applies in terms only to a case where the appeal is remanded in second appeal ..... or letters patent appeal for a fresh decision by the lower appellate court. here the appeal a.s. no. 179 of 1963 (similarly the appeal concerned in c.m .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1926 (PC)

Vythilinga Pandara Sannidhi Audhinakarthar Tiruvadu Tmurai Adhinam Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 95Ind.Cas.214

..... seemed to be a clear case in which for the purpose of effectually and completely adjudicating upon and settling all questions involved with regard to the patent right of the plaintiff it was not only proper but necessary that this other patentee should have been added as party defendant. but the court of ..... defendant?'16. and lord justice kay at pages 491 and 492* observe as follows:---'no doubt the judgment in the present case may indirectly affect montfort's patent; but the answer to that is, that whether it would affect it or not, this rule does not apply to such a case. montfort says ..... is the question involved in this action? the question, and the only question, is whether what marsden is t doing is an infringment of the plaintiff's patent.15. and again later on that eminent judge says 'can it be said that the rule prevents the plaintiff from proceeding against a defendant without having to ..... that case the plaintiff the patentee of a machine brought the action against the defendant for using a machine which he alleged was an infringement of his patent. one montforts the maker and patentee of the defendant's machine applied to be added as defendant alleging that the judgment in the action would in are ..... already referred to this was such a case. there was a defendant, who when sued by the plaintiff for infringement of a patent right sought to justify his action on the patent right of a third party and if the terms of clause, 2 of rule 10 should be taken absolutely as contended for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1997 (HC)

Sri Vedantha Sthapana Sabha, Represented by Its Present Secretary, S. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1997)2MLJ265

..... appellant for declaring it as hereditary trustee cannot be granted.13. aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned single judge, the plaintiff sabha has filed the above letters patent appeal.14. we have heard the arguments of mr. g. subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the appellant sabha and mr. k. elango, learned government advocate for the respondents/department.15 ..... suit temple. aggrieved by that, the appellant preferred a.s. no. 240 of 1984, which was also dismissed by a learned single judge of this court. hence the present letters patent appeal by the sabha.4. according to the appellant, the suit temple is dedicated to sri lakshmi hayavadhana perumal in naganallur, chennai-61. the said temple has been founded by ..... ar. lakshmanan, j.1. the above letters patent appeal has been directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court dated 7.11.1995 in appeal no. 240 of 1984 dismissing the appeal thereby confirming .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1998 (HC)

V. T. Somasundaram Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1999]70ITD398(Mad)

..... we have narrated above, it is not the case of the assessee that there has been glaring and patent mistake either of facts or law committed by this tribunal. the grievance of the assessee is that each and every paper to which reference was made or attention drawn at ..... and deserving cases where the tribunal is satisfied that on account of the glaring and patent mistake committed by the tribunal grave prejudice and injustice has been caused to the litigants before it in the appeal.4. from the submissions made in the written application which ..... tribunal under any other provisions of the income tax act or the rules made thereunder. no doubt the tribunal has inherent power to recall an order if there has been patent and glaring mistake of fact or law in arriving at the decision. but this power, courts have cautioned, has to be used very cautiously and sparingly and only in appropriate .....

Tag this Judgment!


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