Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1929 Page 1 of about 42 results (0.030 seconds)

Feb 21 1929 (PC)

The Corporation of Madras Vs. Spencer and Co., Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-21-1929

Reported in : AIR1930Mad55; 121Ind.Cas.849; (1929)57MLJ71

..... unreasonable within the meaning of lord russell's definition in that case, the court has power to interfere with its levy. we have been referred to another case, institute of patent agents v. lockwood (1894) a.c. 347 in which lord herschell, when dealing with the rules framed by the board of trade under the ..... patents, designs and trade marks act, 1888, which fixed a certain fee, in the course of his judgment observed:i confess that it seems to me, if there were any power .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1929 (PC)

Penugonda Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-20-1929

Reported in : AIR1930Mad896; (1931)60MLJ25

..... have seen, over the governor and council of fort st. george. it follows, therefore, that the madras high court, which has inherited the powers of the supreme court by letters patent, in exercising its 'jurisdiction, powers and authority' under section 106 (1) of the government of india act, has no jurisdiction over the governor and council jointly or severally.80. ..... the writ is granted is original, as contrasted with appellate. this jurisdiction termed 'original' is not to be confused with 'original civil jurisdiction' mentioned in section 12 of the letters patent. the last mentioned jurisdiction can be exercised by its very nature, within certain local limits. but the jurisdiction possessed by the high court in the matter of certiorari is supervisory ..... possessed by the supreme court itself, this clause cannot avail the applicant.36. having regard to the opening words of the clause referred to, the question arises: have the letters patent 'otherwise directed' far from it; they contain, in fact, no provision corresponding to clause 8 of the charter of 1800. the high court, therefore, derives its power to issue ..... , and all such powers and authority for and in relation to the administration of justice in the presidency for which it is established, as her majesty may by such letters patent as aforesaid grant and direct, subject, however, to such directions and limitations as to the exercise of original, civil and criminal jurisdiction beyond the limits of the presidency towns .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1929 (PC)

immidisetti Dhanaraju and ors. Vs. Motilal Daga, Trading Under the Nam ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1929

Reported in : AIR1929Mad641; (1929)57MLJ264

..... advocate for the respondents, contended that the amending act does not lead to the conclusion that in appeals under the civil procedure code, clause 36 of the letters patent applies. his argument may be thus stated; the amending act is declaratory in its nature; it is not intended to alter the law; the law ..... the first decision of this court, apart from practice, decided after a consideration of the point that section 98 and not clause 36 of the letters patent applied to appeals under the civil procedure code. in puma chandra chatterji v. narendra nath chowdhry 29 c.w.n. 755 (f.b.). walmsley, j., held ..... an appeal to the privy council on the ground that section 98 was wrongly applied. the privy council held that clause 36 of the letters patent ought to be applied.4. lord buckmaster who delivered the judgment of the judicial committee rested his conclusion by reference to section 4 of the ..... decision in this court. in surajmal v. horniman (1917) 20 bom. l.r. 185 it was held that clause 36 of the letters patent applied in an appeal from the original side but the reasoning on which the judgment was based was perfectly general and will equally apply to appeals under ..... no express attempt was made by the legislature. still apparently it was contended that impliedly the indian legislature did intend to supersede clause 36 of the letters patent by section 575 of the civil procedure code. this argument prevailed in appaji bhivrav v. shivlal khubchand (1870) 13 w.r. 209 a decision of a full .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 1929 (PC)

Kondireddi Bulliraju Alias Achayamma Vs. Kondireddi Satyanarayanamurth ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-23-1929

Reported in : (1930)58MLJ388

..... entrusted the duty of declaring whether he considers the case a fit one for further appeal to the judge himself. before the amendment of the letters patent in 1927, there was a right of further appeal to two judges as a matter of course in such cases. it is clear that the ..... exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. similar remarks would apply to the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in a single judge under section 15 of the letters patent. the jurisdiction should not be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily, but in a judicial manner and in the exercise of sound discretion having regard to all ..... council would not be granted in a case is not conclusive that leave to appeal should not be granted under section 15 of the letters patent.27. three decisions of indian courts were brought to my notice which contain some indications of principles which should guide me in deciding the question ..... of the civil procedure code relating to appeals to the privy council impose a stricter test for granting leave to appeal. under section 15 of the letters patent i am inclined to think that the judge should not insist on such a strict test. leave to appeal against the decisions of county court ..... lower appellate court is contrary to law, etc., that a second appeal would be successfully entertained. the wordings of section 15 of the amended letters patent make it abundantly clear that the circumstance that the decision was passed in a second appeal is not enough to entitled the unsuccessful party to leave .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1929 (PC)

Ramanayya Vs. Kotayya and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-30-1929

Reported in : AIR1930Mad75; 121Ind.Cas.621

..... said judgment only if the judge who decided the second appeal granted leave to appeal. this, to our mind, is clear from the provision 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 be a 'judgment ..... , very doubtful whether such 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 a second appeal after ..... the learned judge after 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.5. as remarked ..... mr. venkataramana rao, the learned advocate, who appeared for the respondent, that no appeal lies from suchf orders of refusal of leave to appeal.3. clause 15 of the letters patent of this high court was recently amended on 3rd november, 1927, and on 12th december, 1928.4. the effect of these amendments is to declare that no appeal shall lie .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1929 (PC)

Balasundara Naicker and anr. Vs. Ranganatha Aiyar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-15-1929

Reported in : AIR1929Mad794; 122Ind.Cas.641; (1930)58MLJ503

..... held that it was inadmissible for want of registration under section 17.(3) mallappa v. matum nagu chetty : (1918)35mlj387 . this was a judgment of three judges on a letters patent appeal and they unanimously held that a subsequent oral agreement to take less than what was due under the registered mortgage bond being admitted in the pleadings could be considered ..... chetti (1926) 52 m.l.j. 224 a decision of our brother, waller, j. we are informed that the decision is now under appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. but we can consider the authorities relied on in that case. waller, j., has relied on the following cases:(1) namagiri lakshmi animal v. srinivasa, aiyangar (1914) 27 i.c .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1929 (PC)

Aiyanars and Kaniyala Swamigal Koli Devasthanam and ors. Vs. Periakaru ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-11-1929

Reported in : AIR1929Mad617; 118Ind.Cas.279

..... proceeded to come to findings of fact on the evidence before him. on these, he restored the decrees of the district munsif. the letters patent appeals were preferred against that decision to a bench of this court which held that the plaintiffs had not been afforded sufficient opportunity of presenting their ..... received and are in favour of the plaintiffs. the defendants attack the findings. we have heard arguments thereon and have now to decide the letters patent appeals.6. the most important issue between the parties is whether the kudivaram right is held by the plaintiffs or by the defendants. the plaintiffs ..... or their predecessors-in-title have been paying melwaram all along to the plaintiffs and their predecessors.7. the frame of the issues which the letters patent appeal bench sent down for findings was based on the ruling of the privy council in nainapillai mara-cayar v. ramanathan chetti, a very similar ..... court erred in holding that no notice was necessary but the point does not seem to have been argued before phillips j. when the letters patent appeal bench first heard the appeal, the point was certainly not mentioned. therefore if the question of the reasonableness of the notice is a question ..... insufficiency of notice was set up either. the latter question was not raised before the learned judge (phillips, j.) from whose decision these letters patent appeals are taken on before wallace and srinivasa iyengar, jj. i do not regard it as a pure question of law which can be raised .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1929 (PC)

Anumanchi Ramanayya Vs. Thubati Kotayya and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-30-1929

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!

Sep 04 1929 (PC)

Nanchappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Vatasari Ittichathara Mannadiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-04-1929

Reported in : AIR1930Mad727; (1930)59MLJ358

..... under section 73 of the contract act read with illustration (n).46. for the above reasons, the decision of phillips, j., under appeal in letters patent appeals nos. 256 to 258 should be reversed and the plaintiff's suit so far as it relates to interest should be dismissed with costs.47. ..... decision in abdul safflur rowther v. hamida bivi ammal : (1919)36mlj456 in support of his conclusion.24. the short question for determination in these letters patent appeals is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim 'interest' on the arrears of rent decreed to him. the respondent supports the judgment of phillips, j ..... paid by me to you from the year in which the assessment in levied by the government.23. the suits out of which these letters patent appeals arise were instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of arrears of rent together with 'interest' on the arrears. the district munsif gave decrees ..... taken as typical to show the terms under which the lessees held their lands. its main terms, so far as these are relevant for these letters patent appeals, are as follows:.the remaining sthalams...shall be held and be held as saswatham (permanently) without surrendering the same for ever and enjoyed by ..... of the plaintiff holding lands under perpetual lease deeds, the terms of which in respect to material particulars are alike in all cases except in letters patent appeal no. 255 of 1925, which will be referred to later. under the lease deeds, waste lands were leased out on condition that rent should .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1929 (PC)

Guruswami Pillai and anr. Vs. Virabhadra Tavulkaran and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-26-1929

Reported in : AIR1929Mad497; (1929)57MLJ22

..... before to a bench of three judges is not taken away and continues to exist, but the effect of the amended clause (36) of the letters patent is not to deprive the right of appeal but to change the procedure as to what two judges should do when they find that they are about ..... .j. 150. accordingly it has been contended by the learned advocate for the respondents in this case that the amendment of clause (36) of the letters patent does not operate retrospectively and the opinion of the senior judge should prevail. the fallacy of this argument is obvious. the effect of the cases cited above ..... full bench in this case is, does clause (36) of letters patent as amended apply to an appeal which was pending at the time the amendment came into force?2. it was held in colonial sugar refining co. v. ..... this is all that the appellant wants here.6. we are therefore of opinion that the amended clause (36) of the letters patent applies to all pending cases. we answer the question referred to us accordingly.kumaraswami sastri, j.7. i agree.reilly, j.8. i agree. ..... held that where two judges differ in a chartered high court it is clause (36) of the letters patent that applies and not section 98 of the civil procedure code. now, clause (36) of the letters patent has been recently amended. the question naturally arises whether the amendment is retrospective. accordingly the question referred to the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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