Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1914 Page 1 of about 23 results (0.035 seconds)

Aug 20 1914 (PC)

Bhathey Sundara Rajan and ors. Vs. A.A. Kuppusami Iyer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-20-1914

Reported in : (1914)27MLJ573

..... he paid balian, that is to say, this defendant, remuneration for preparing an adaipet harness on ghose kriahnier's account, so that in 1901 after this patent had been applied for--we find krishnien going to madura to learn to work 'adaipet' and getting on adaipet harness prepared--a phrase which covers the plaintiffs invention ..... 1888 ') a defendant in an action for infringement is not allowed to set up by way of defence all the grounds on which the grant of the patent could be opposed, grounds which are to be found in section 20 of the act. one of those grounds is that invention was not a new invention. ..... , that it was not the proper subject matter for a patent; and accordingly, in many text books this matter is treated as distinct from the question whether the invention is new, whereas other text-book writers analysing ..... the defendant is not precluded from pleading that the alleged invention was not. the proper subject-matter of a patent, or that there was no subject, matter for the patent it is quite true that in english patent cases it has been the custom to plead, not only that the alleged invention was not new, but also ..... act of 1911. under that act, as in england, any of the statutory grounds for opposing the grant of the patent may be pleaded in answer to an action for an infringement of a patent. it was argued that, although this provision was not in force at the time that this suit was tried and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1914 (PC)

Karuppanna Goundan Vs. Kandaswami Goundan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-04-1914

Reported in : (1914)26MLJ233

..... is not bound to interfere even if the magistrate's order sought to be revised was an illegal order) and it would require a very strong case for a letters patent appeal to succeed against the decision of a single judge of this court refusing to interfere in revision.6. we therefore dismiss the appeal.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1914 (PC)

Manjunathaya and Subaraya Bhatta Vs. King Emperor

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1914

Reported in : (1914)26MLJ352

..... by authority that any statement which forms a simple connected narrative leading naturally to the discovery of the stolen property is admissible in evidence and that only statements which are patently irrelevant to the discovery and which the police may be suspected to have introduced into the statement in order to fasten the guilt more securely on the accused were intended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1914 (PC)

K.R. Ramachandra Ayyar Vs. the President of the Vakils' Association, H ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-16-1914

Reported in : (1916)ILR39Mad128

order1. the petitioner relies upon the fact that leave to appeal was granted by this court in a similar case in the matter of krishnaswami iyer civil miscellaneous petitions nos. 595 and 596 of 1912, but on a further consideration of the question we agree with the recent decision, in re an attorney i.l.r. (1914) cal. 734, that disciplinary proceedings under clause 10 of the letters patent are not appealable under clause 39, and that we have no power to give leave to appeal to the privy council from an order passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction. this is also the view taken in g.s.d. v. government pleader (1908) i.l.r. 32 bom. 106. in tetley v. jai shankar i.l.r. (1878) all. 726 also it was held that no such leave could be granted and though in the subsequent case from allahabad, in re s.b. sarbadhicary (1906) 34 i.a. 41 it appears that leave was granted by the allahabad high court, the reports show that special leave to appeal was obtained from their lordships before the appeal was beard.2. the application is dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1914 (PC)

Srinivasa Ranga Rao Pantulu, by the Official Assignee, High Court Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-24-1914

Reported in : (1915)28MLJ67

..... apply to the learned judge by petition for restoring the appeal; but even if he was not entitled, he has not lost his remedy by lettets patent appeal; and that for the purposes of this appeal it is reasonable to construe the order of the 6th december 1912 as incorporating the earlier order, ..... to consider the correctness of the whole order subject to a question of limitation with which i shall deal immediately. if this had been a letters patent appeal from the order dismissing the appeal in the first instance without any application for restoration it might have been reasonably though i do not say ..... be that the short period of limitation allowed by rule 48 of the high court (appellate side) is in this manner violated, and that the letters patent appeal is thus sought to be filed on 2nd january 1913. from an order that should have been appealed against within 30 days of 8th august 1912 ..... no. 1079 of 1912 on the 8th august 1912. it is argued that the only course open to the appellant was to have filed a letters patent appeal immediately from the order of august 1912 and not to have made any intermediate application for the re-admission-of the appeal. the result of ..... mistaken course of himself dismissing the appeal, the appellant did not at once appeal against that dismissal and obtain the decision of a bench under the letters patent, but chose instead to apply under order 41, rule 19. then the learned judge could consider only whether it was proved that the appellant was prevented .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1914 (PC)

Rao Sahib T. Numberumal Chettiar Vs. Krishnajee

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-13-1914

Reported in : AIR1914Mad418; (1914)26MLJ356

..... was any adjudication, except as to costs, the adjudication to which the order for costs was incidental was not a ' judgment ' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent, whereas in the case now before us it cannot be suggested that the adjudication to which the order for costs is incidental is not a judgment within clause 15. it ..... hearing of the appeal. the appeal is from a judgment of wallis j. sitting on the original side. the right of appeal is created by clause 15 of the letters patent. mr. grant's first objection was that no appeal lay since this was an appeal from an order as to costs only. the learned judge gave the plaintiff a decree .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1914 (PC)

The President, Vakils' Association, High Court Vs. A Vakil of the High ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-20-1914

Reported in : AIR1914Mad635; (1914)26MLJ429

..... s. madhuvaier, private vakil, kumbakonam. it is therefore requested that this honourable court may be graciously pleased to take action against the said vakil under section 10 of the letters patent'.2. in dealing with this case we proceed on the same assumption as that adopted by the vakils' association namely, that 'the facts in the explanation are true.' the letter ..... the notice to show cause. he has, however, as amicus curiae urged before us that this is a case in which we ought not to take action under the letters patent. we have considered the letter with great care by the light of the explanation. if i could read the letter as nothing more than a statement that the report referred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1914 (PC)

V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar (Receiver) Vs. V. Cunniappa Chetty and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-31-1914

Reported in : AIR1914Mad88; 24Ind.Cas.895; (1914)26MLJ567

..... .2. the more difficult question that remains is whether the suit is one for land within the meaning of those words as used in section 12 of the madras letters patent. the suit is brought for the recovery of damages for trees cut and removed by the defendants. they are said to be trees in a plantation situated outside the limits ..... so as to preclude it from being raised in any subsequent suit, the suit is one for land within the meaning of the words in section 12 of the letters patent. mr. ramasami aiyar relied upon the decision of this court in marappa mudali v. s.t. mccarthy i.l.r. (1881) m. 192 and upon the decision in pattangowda v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1914 (PC)

Aiya Koundan and ors. Vs. Jagan Mandalathipathiar, Gopanna Marudiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-19-1914

Reported in : (1914)27MLJ480

..... facts closely resemble those dealt with in bui kashi bai v. shidappa annapa i.l.r. (1913) b. 683, a decision in which we express our respectful concurrence. the letters patent appeal and petition are allowed with costs. the district munsif's order is set aside and he is directed to restore the suit and dispose of it according to law. ..... 1. we disallow the preliminary objection that no letters patent appeal lies with reference to rama aiyar v. venkatachella padayachi i.l.r. (1906) m. 311. there is no doubt that an ill-advised grant of permission to withdraw a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1914 (PC)

K. Balasubrahmania Iyer and Vs. S. Kandasami Pillai and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-1914

Reported in : 32Ind.Cas.91

..... passed into law, the other view still prevailed and the legislature endeavoured to give effect to it as nearly as possible in the words used in the decided cases. in patent bread machinery company, ex parte valpy and chaplin 7 ch. ap 289; 26 l.t. 228; 20 w.r. 347, lord justice james after observing that the mortgage was not ..... company and not for arrears of salary due to him.8. the explanation to section 68, which appears to be intended to reproduce the ruling of lord justice james in patent bread machinery company, ex parte valpy and chaplin 7 ch. ap 289; 26 l.t. 228; 20 w.r. 347, as far as possible in his own language, is as .....

Tag this Judgment!


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