Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 34 results (0.071 seconds)

Feb 28 1958 (HC)

Blackwood and Sons Ltd. and ors. Vs. A.N. Parasuraman and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-28-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad410

..... am unable to conceive of the possibility of such a course without attributing a local situation to that right.62. earlier i have set out instances of intangible rights like patents and trade marks as affording an analogy for reaching a decision in relation to copyright. the basis of the rule in those cases is to be found in the two ..... a debt be stipulated it will be there situate, the general rule notwithstanding. a cause of action in contract or tort is situate where action may be brought upon it. patents and trade marks are situate where they can be transferred on the same principle as shares in companies......the inference, however, must not be rawn that because no personal property ..... principle which fixes 'situs' with reference to the jurisdiction where the right could be enforced, and (3) lastly the analogy furnished by comparable intangible rights such as patents and trade marks (as to patents see 1932 ac 23858. if the intangible right whose situs has to be determined is a statutory right and owes its existence to a statute enacted by a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1958 (HC)

Thiruvengada Mudaliar Vs. T. Narayana Reddiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad141

..... points and held that the suit was maintainable and remanded the suit to the trial court for disposal on merits. he, however, granted leave to appeal and hence this letters patent appeal by the second defend ant, auction-purchaser in the sale in execution of the decree in o.. s. no. 67 of 1934. learned counsel for the appellant once again ..... concerned property did not pass out of the estate of the insolvent before adjudication. 4. as both the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant fail the letters patent appeal must be and is hereby dismissed with costs of the plaintiff-respondent.

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1958 (HC)

The State of Madras Vs. the Madura Knitting Co., Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-26-1958

Reported in : [1959]10STC155(Mad)

..... or regular. mr. padmanabhan contested this hotly. according to him, a commercial tax officer could only interfere with the orders passed by a deputy commercial tax officer if they were patently illegal or outside his jurisdiction, or there was impropriety in the sense of misconduct like bribery or inducement by immorality being the cause for the order, and irregularity in the ..... given to the commercial tax officer, the deputy commissioner and the board of revenue under section 12(2) of the madras general sales tax act, were confined only to errors patent on the face of the records, and would not extend to probing further into the records like calling for despatch registers and other evidence. this contention must, be rejected forthwith .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1958 (HC)

Abdul Kafoor and anr. Vs. Abdul Razack and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-18-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad131; (1958)2MLJ492

..... estoppel. in this connection reference may be made to the decision in ilr (1918) mad 365 : air 1918 mad 119. that was an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent against the judgment of sadasiva aiyar, j., who differed from spencer, j. that decision is reported in asa beevi v. karuppan chetty, 41 ind cas 361 : air 1918 mad 743 ..... ramachandra iyer, j.1. this appeal is under clause 15 of the letters patent against the judgment of krishnaswami nayudu, j. in s. a. no. 1407 of 1946. that arose out of a suit filed by the appellants against the respondents for partition and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1958 (HC)

Mahalinga Pathar Vs. Santhanagopalakrishnan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-10-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad80; (1958)2MLJ580

..... the ground to set out in his written statement in the original suit, though his contention that his pleas had been impliedly upheld must fail. in this view the letters patent appeals must be dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.4. the two applications filed by the son were heard and disposed of by the learned subordinate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1958 (HC)

National Traders, a Firm of Merchants in Partnership Vs. Hindustan Soa ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-10-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad112; (1960)IIMLJ195

ramachandra iyer, j. 1. this appeal arises under clause 35 of the letters patent from the judgment of basheer ahmed sayeed j. in c. c. c. a. no. 93 of 1952, at the instance of the plaintiff. that appeal arose out of a suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1958 (HC)

The Public Prosecutor Vs. S. Joseph

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-12-1958

Reported in : (1960)1MLJ334

..... . wording of sheo swarup reiterated. high court is not justified in an appeal against acquittal in brushing aside the view taken by the trial court which is by no means patently absurd or unreasonable because as a result of labo- rious process o reasoning, it is pos- sible to take a different view on the evidence.atley v. state of u .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1958 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi), Owing the Southern Rly. by Its General Manager V ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-11-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad117; (1958)IIMLJ419

..... judges who held that an order of transfer of a suit from a subordinate court to this court was a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. there are also other decisions which proceed on similar reasoning to which reference need not be made.the supreme court, however, in asrumati debi v. rupendra deb, ..... alagappa chettiar, ilr mad 1, and in subsequent decisions to find out whether an order falls within the category of a judgment under clause 15 of the letters krishna reddi v. thanikachala mudalia, ilr (1924) mad 136: air 1924 mad 90, more or less the same kind of reasoning was adopted by the learned ..... 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 and is appealable.the reasoning of the learned judges was that such an order was not an interlocutory one made in the exercise of a discretionary power. ..... must be dismissed on the short ground that it is not maintainable. the order under appeal is not a judgment, within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent to permit this appeal. learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the ruling in baba sah v. purushotama sah, ilr (1925) mad 700 : air 1925 mad 167 ..... order inquestion docs not fulfil either of the tests, we musthold that it is not a judgment within the meaningof clause 15 of the letters patent. it follows that thisappeal under that clause is not sustainable and istherefore dismissed with costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1958 (HC)

P.T. Munia Servai Vs. Hanuman Bank Ltd. by Official Liquidator

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Mad418; (1958)2MLJ96

..... of appeals. the granting of probates or succession certificates will come within the original civil jurisdiction, but it would not come under ordinary original civil jurisdiction, which, by the letters patent, seems to be confined to suits and matters under clauses 12 to 21, which refer to the exercise by the high court of its ordinary original givil jurisdiction.10. but ..... this court passed the order, dated 21st october, 1953, did not come within the purview of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction defined in clauses 11 and 12 of the letters patent could not admit of any doubt. clause 11 defined the territorial limits of the jurisdiction, suits arising within which would be tried by this court in the exercise of the ..... dealt with. in the application of that principle it is immaterial whether the ordinary original civil jurisdiction, besides that provided for by clause 12 of the letters patent is one conferred by the letters patent itself, or by a separate enactment.9. the learned counsel for the appellant referred to kuppuswami nayagar, in re (1929) 59 m.l.j. 17 ; i.l .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1958 (HC)

A. Arunachala Naicker Vs. Ghulam Mahmood Sahib

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-21-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad191; (1959)1MLJ181

..... . a decree for ejectment was passed on appeal was filed against that decree to this court which failed. that decree was further confirmed in the letters patent appeal and the proceedings finally terminated on 23-3-1950 when the tenant was given one year's time to vacate the land. an application for delivery of possession was ..... arose whether a decision of a single judge of the high court under section 76 of the act was subject to a further appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. the supreme court held that such further appeal lay. in so holding the supreme court observed at page 222 (of mad lj) : (at p. 362 of air) :"the rights created ..... of a new subject-matter of appeal to the appellate jurisdiction already exercised by the high court."4. in that view it was held that clause 15 of the letters patent applied to the case and a further appeal lay to a bench of the high court against the judgment of a single judge. it therefore follows that when a right .....

Tag this Judgment!

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