Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1950 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.036 seconds)

Nov 02 1950 (HC)

Srirangam Municipality Represented by Its Executive Authority the Comr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-02-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad807; (1951)IMLJ281

..... the transfer of a suit from the presidency ct. of small causes to this ct. for trial & disposal as an appln. falling under clause 13 of the letters patent. obviously an appln. under that clause must be made to the h. c. on the original side because it invokes the extra-ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred on ..... that the h. c. should exercise the power on its original side. the appln. before the learned judges in that case clearly fell within clause 13 of the letters patent. it was an appln. 'simpliciter' for the transfer of a suit from the presidency small causes ct. to this ct. to be heard & disposed of on the ..... of ramesam j. in 'jumna bai v. ramanatha chetti', ilr 52 mad 52: air 1929 mad 29 were made on the assumption that clause 13 of the letters patent would enable this ct. to transfer a suit pending in the mofussil to the file of this ct. & to retransfer it after passing appropriate interim orders. it is ..... j. delivering the judgment of the f. b. clearly pointed out the difference between the powers conferred on the h. c. by clause 13 of the letters patent & those conferred by section 24, c. p. c. the learned chief justice disagreed with ramesam j. in so far as he held that clause 13 of the letters ..... patent would enable an appln. for transfer to be made on the original side of the h. c. along with an appln. for an injunction or other interlocutory .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1950 (HC)

V. Ramamirtham, Sole Proprietor, Glorious Pictures Vs. Rama Film Servi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-27-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad93; (1951)IIMLJ121

..... by necessary intendmentgiven the act a retrospective effect.' it will be observed that the right of appeal was not taken away altogether by the amendmentof clause 15 of the letters patent, but the leave of the judge who decided the second appeal was interposed as a condition of the maintainabilityof an appeal from his judgment. the result ofthe leading cases above ..... which presumably reflected the intention of the legislature & was therefore left unaffeated by any amendment of the law. having regard to the provisions of clauses 11 & 12 of the letters patent, section 16, madras city civil court act, & sections 21, 22 & 39, presidency towns small cause courts act, i am constrained to hold section 15, c. p. c., does not fit ..... wide & general application. all the same, can it be said that the general language of section 15, c. p. c. has, by implication, repealed the special provisions of the letters patent, the provisions of the presidency towns small cause courts act & the madras city civil court (act?) already referred to ib is a question of construction whether section 15, c. p ..... & maximum limits of their pecuniaryjurisdiction vary. a short analysis of the relevant statutory provisions constituting thesegta. & investing them with jurisdiction to trysuits is necessary. clauses 11 & 12 of the letters patent of the h. c. of madras invested it with ordinary original jurisdiction to receive, try and determine suits of every description subject to limitations as to the situation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1950 (HC)

Mallampati Kondayya and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-29-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad676; (1951)IMLJ97

..... the subordinate judge of nellore in which the insolvency petition had been pending previously. in the view of the learned judges of the full bench, clause 13 of the letters patent would not apply to such a case.4. under section 24 civil procedure code the high court is empowered to withdraw any suit or other original proceeding pending in any ct subordinate ..... it is directed against an order refusing atransfer and such an order has been held to benot a 'judgment' and therefore not open toappeal under clause 15 of the letters patent.see 'narasa reddi v. tar mohamed', 51 mad330: air 1928 mad 209. for this reason this appeal has to be dismissed. there willbe no order as to costs ..... pending in mofussil courts and to pass interlocutory orders in respect of those proceedings is sought to be rested on clause 13 of the letters patent or section 24 of the civil procedure code. clause 13 of the letters patent applies to suits and it has been held by the decision of a full bench of this court in 'krishna mudaliar v. sabapathi mudaliar ..... viswanatha sastri, j.1. these five appeals under clause 15 of the letters patent arise out of orders passed in the course of an insolvency petition i. p. no. 3 of 1949 on the file of the court of the subordinate judge, nellore. one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1950 (HC)

K. Nagabhushana Reddy Minor by Guardian K.V. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Reddi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-10-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad279; (1950)2MLJ482

..... issuing an interim injunction upon terms restraining the appellant from applying for the passing of the final decree. it is against this order of the learned judge that this letters patent appeal has been filed. 2. it has been argued by the learned advocate for the respondent in support of the order passed that the learned judge was right in refusing ..... mudali, 1937-2 m. l. j. 888; a.i.r. 1938 mad. 190. one of us followed that decision in kuppammal v. seetharama aiyar : air1948mad528 , which was taken in letters patent appeal and considered in subramanian v. seetkarama a. i. r. 1949 mad. 104: i. l. r. (1949) mad. 316, in which it was held that this court had no powers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1950 (HC)

S.A. Seshadri Ayyangar Vs. A. Narayana Nair

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-06-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad640; (1950)2MLJ396

..... possession. an appeal preferred by the landlord to this court against the order of dismissal of his execution petition was dismissed by balakrishna ayyar j., from whose judgment this letters patent appeal has been preferred. 2. a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the appeal to this court against the order of the judge of the city civil court ..... viswanatha sastri, j. 1. the landlord of anon-residential building in the madras city is the appellant and the tenant is the respondent in this letters patent appeal. the madras non-residential buildings control order, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the order, expired on 30-9-1946 and the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act xv [ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1950 (HC)

K. Appalaraju and ors. Vs. K. Rajagopala Narasaraju and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-10-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Mad595

balakrishna ayyar, j.1. this is a letters patent appeal by some of the plaintiffs from the judgment of byers j. dismissing the suit which they and some others had brought for a share in a certain pension.2. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1950 (HC)

Annapurna Patrani and ors. Vs. Lakshmana Kara and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-11-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Mad740

..... decided against the appellant by the learned judge (panchapakesa aiyar j.) in second appeal; but as he has granted a certificate, these two questions have been reagitated in this letters patent appeal.2. our attention has not been drawn to any decisions directly on the point here raised; but arguments have proceeded on the analogy of attachments raised in proceedings under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1950 (HC)

Balasubramanian Chettiar Vs. Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Mad783; (1950)IIMLJ206

..... considered by this court in any decided cases, the legislation being of very recent origin, he, in dismissing the appeal, granted a certificate for leave to appeal under the letters patent,4. a preliminary point has been raised as to whether second appeals lie; but we do not think that there is any substance in that objection. it is not necessary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1950 (HC)

In Re: Balasundara Pavalar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-30-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad7; (1950)2MLJ616

..... court, or in its letters patent, there is no provision allowing it to alter a judgment or review the same. therefore the learned counsel contends that since an order refusing bail is not a judgment as ..... provided by the code or by any other law for the time being in force, or, in the case of a high court established by royal charter, by the letters patent of such high court, no court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. in the charter of the high ..... application refusing bail by this court pending the trial of an accused person in a lower court is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of c. 15 of the letters patent. the learned judge also opined that such an order would not be a judgment under section 369, criminal p. c. such being the case, in the opinion of the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1950 (HC)

P.V. Eswara Iyer Vs. Sankunni Nair

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-22-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad591; (1951)IMLJ15

..... in re govinda row : air1936mad134 were followed and an order refusing leave to appeal in a second appeal was held not to be appealable under clause 15 of the letters patent. the ratio decidendi of these cases was that an order granting or refusing leave was part of the decision on the merits of the second appeal itself and not an ..... . 1938 mad. 399 where it was held that anorder of a single judge refusing to review hisjudgment in a second appeal was not appealable under clause 15 of the letters patent. i might also refer to the recent decision in kumarappa chettiar v. the official receiver, west tanjore, : air1950mad216 where the decisions in ramanayya v. kotayya, 57 m. l. j. 398 ..... petitioner relied upon ramanayyav. kotayya, 57 m. l. j. 398 : a. i. r. 1930 mad. 75 where this court held that no appeal lay under clause 15 of the letters patent against an order of a single judge refusing to grant leave to appeal from his judgment in a secondappeal. he also referred to in re veerasami padayachi, i. l. r .....

Tag this Judgment!

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