Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1926 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.067 seconds)

Nov 17 1926 (PC)

Peria Koil Kelvi Appan Govinda Ramanuja Pedda Jeeyangarlavaru Vs. Kada ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-17-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad398; (1927)52MLJ161

..... as contended for by mr. venkatachariar, final decisions in equity cases were known as decrees is not at all clear. section 40 of the letters patent shows that the words 'judgment' and 'decree' are not limited to final decisions, because it refers to preliminary or interlocutory judgments, etc. the decisions ..... has been generally considered as affording a general test as to what amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. applying the test contained in it, the learned judges in srinivasa aiyangar v. ramaswami chettiar held that the order of a single judge of ..... high, court refusing stay of execution or allowing it does not amount to a ' judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. the decision in vairavan chettiar v. ramanathan chettiar simply follows the decision in srimantu raja yarlagadda durga prasada nayadu v. srimantu raja yarlagadda mallikarjuna ..... mofussal court pending the disposal of the appeal therefrom to the high court is a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent and that an appeal therefrom is maintainable under that clause. it is conceded that this decision would govern the present case. but what is ..... it is the civil procedure code definition of a decree, it does not say. there is of course no particular reason why we should interpret the letters patent by the civil procedure code, nor to my mind is there any particular reason why we should interpret the word 'decree' in the old equity sense. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1926 (PC)

(Gutta) Punnayya Vs. (Kaza) Parandamayya and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-17-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad317

..... exhaustively dealt with. the question is not free from difficulty, in view of the various interpretations of the word 'judgment' in clause 15 of the letters patent, made in numerous decisions, not always easy to reconcile, while the act itself has not defined it. in the present case, the direction given by the ..... was not appealed against could be questioned in second appeal. the legality of the order of madhavan nair, j., could be questioned only in letters patent appeal against his judgment in the case. the order appealed against, i have no hesitation to hold, is not a judgment within the meaning of ..... execution of a decree of a mofussil court pending an appeal therefrom to the high court is a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent and an appeal therefrom is maintainable. in that case krishnan, j., and waller, j., followed tuljaram row v. alagappa chettiar [1910] 35 mad. 1 ..... etc., but supposing the judge decides that the plaintiff is not a reversioner and does not dismiss the suit could it be said that a letters patent appeal is competent against the decision on that point, and if his decision is reversed in appeal, and after remand, if the judge decides the question ..... ordered the case to be sent down to the lower appellate court for a. finding on the issue. the 2nd defendant has preferred this letters patent appeal. a preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the order appealed against is not a judgment within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1926 (PC)

C. Govindarajulu Naidu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-19-1926

Reported in : (1927)53MLJ355

..... in entire agreement. in my view the government cannot be said to be carrying on business within the meaning of the word in that clause of the letters patent. this decision in daya narain tewary v. the secretary of state for india ilr (1887) c 256 was followed in rodricks v. the secretary of state for ..... state for india in council. at page 273 in the course of this judgment mitter, j., says:that the word 'business' in clause 12 of the letters patent was used in a restricted sense is also indicated by the words 'personally work for gain' to be found in the same section. the latter words would be ..... this court in subbaraya mudali v. the government and cunliffe (1863) 1 mhcr 286. in that case it was held that under clause 12 of the letters patent the government must be considered as carrying on business at the place where its members exercise all the functions of government, that is, in madras. but even in ..... difficulty whatever in so holding.8. the next contention is that even so he can sue by reason of the latter part of clause 12 of the letters patent, which is:or if the defendant shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain within those limits.9. it is contended that the defendant ..... and the order for confiscation were right or both were wrong. for the purpose of upholding the objection on this part of clause 12 of the letters patent it is only necessary to hold that only a part of the cause of action arose outside the local limits of this high court. for the reasons i .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1926 (PC)

Paramaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Pichammal Alias Sriranga Nachiyar No ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-06-1926

Reported in : AIR1926Mad986; (1926)51MLJ299

..... intention to interfere with any right of appeal to the privy council that might otherwise exist, and this is a case which comes clearly within the provisions of the letters patent and of section 109 of the code. the only question is whether this is a case which can properly be certified to be a fit one for appeal to his ..... the letters patent. by the civil procedure code an appeal to the privy council against an order or decree of the high court is provided if it fulfils certain conditions. sections 109 and no of ..... limitation to exclude the ordinary incidents of litigation.5. the order passed by this court is a decree in a contested civil matter and under clause 39 of the letters patent an appeal lies to the privy council from any judgment, decree or order of the high court made on appeal. clause 44 empowers the indian legislature to alter or modify .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1926 (PC)

D.K. Asher Vs. V.C. Gopalaratnam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-01-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad409; (1927)52MLJ192

..... court sitting on the original side allowing or refusing to allow a plaintiff to sue as a pauper is a judgment under clause 15 of the letters patent. but this case has no application as the learned judges were of opinion that the order was not an interlocutory one but was an adjudication of ..... application was not in any matter in a pending suit and krishnan, j., at page 321, while referring to the cases observed that the cases where letters patent appeals were refused fell under the second part of the definition of sir arnold white, c.j., in tuljaram row v. alagappa chettiar ilr (1910) m ..... very important matter for the plaintiff or the defendant but that by itself could not make the order of refusal a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent. 1 think an order like the present is, to use the words of sir arnold white, c.j., merely an adjudication on an application which is ..... is nothing more than a step towards obtaining a final adjudication in the suit is not, in my opinion, a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent.i think, too, an order on an independent proceeding which is ancillary to the suit (not instituted as a step towards judgment, but with a view ..... such an order and the question is whether an order in an interlocutory application refusing inspection is a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. mr. g. krishnaswami aiyar who appears for the appellant is unable to cite any authority in support of his argument that an appeal lies. he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1926 (PC)

Vicharanakartha of Tirumalai Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1926

Reported in : (1926)51MLJ148

..... have 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 a party defendant. but the court ..... a defendant?18. and lord justice kay at pages 491 and 492 observes as follows:no doubt the judgment in the present case may indirectly affect montforts' patent; but the answer to that is, that whether it would affect it or not, this rule does not apply to such a case. montforts says ..... is the question involved in this auction? the question, and the only question, is whether what marsden is doing is an infringement of the plaintiff's patent.17. 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 injure ..... 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!

Mar 08 1926 (PC)

Vaithilinga Pandara Sannidhi Audhinakarthar Tiruvaduthurai Adhinam Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1926

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!

Mar 08 1926 (PC)

Sri Mahant Prayaga Doss Jee Varu Vs. Board of Commissioners for Hindu ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1926

Reported in : AIR1926Mad927

..... 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 a party defendant. but the court ..... defendant ?20. and lord justice kay at pages 491 and 492 observes as follows:no doubt the judgment in the present ease may indirectly affect montforts' patent; but the answer to that is, that whether it would affect it or not, this rule does not apply to such a case. montforts says ..... what is the question involved in this action the question, and the only question, is whether what marsden is doing is an infringement of the plaintiffs patent.19. 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 ..... 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 injure ..... 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!

Mar 08 1926 (PC)

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

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1926

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!

Aug 13 1926 (PC)

Pinnamameni Basava Sankaram (Minor) by Mother and Guardian Rattamma Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-13-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad1; (1926)51MLJ529

..... the full bench in balavenkata seetharama chettiar v. official receiver, tanjore (1926) 51 m l j 369 (f b) i think the matter is concluded by authority.7. the letters patent appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.krishnan, j.8. l.p.a. no. 125 of 1924 : to understand the points raised in this appeal facts may be briefly stated ..... receiver's sale was invalid and it has not been validated in any way i hold that the plaintiffs suit should have been decreed. i would therefore allow the letters patent appeal and dismiss the second appeal to the high court with costs in both.l.p.a. no. 126 of 1924 follows.ramesam, j.17. this is a letters ..... patent appeal from the order of devadoss, j., in s.a. no. 100 of 1923. the 2nd defendant applied to be adjudicated an insolvent on the 24th of january, 1918. the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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