Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1960 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.024 seconds)

Feb 16 1960 (HC)

Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Ramachandra Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-16-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Mad568; (1960)2MLJ264

..... if it were so necessary. but as already stated, the plaintiff has got to be non-suited on our conclusion on the question of law discussed above.(12) the letters patent appeal is therefore allowed and the judgment of krishnaswami nayudu k. is set aside. the judgment and decree of the courts below are restored. the appellant will have his costs ..... throughout in favour of the successful plaintiff. the learned judge, however, granted leave to appeal. the aggrieved defendants have preferred the above letters patent appeal.(9) the question of law that arises for consideration in this letters patent appeal is whether a widow of a deceased coparcener in a hindu joint family can, without working out her rights of partition under the ..... : the appellants will have their costs in the two courts below. there will be no order as to costs in this court, either in second appeal or in the letters patent appeal.)(13) appeal allowed. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1960 (HC)

Swami Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. by Its Managing Director, T.A. Ra ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-29-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad180

..... to have a majority opinion in accordance with which panchapakesa aiyar, j. and basheer ahmed sayeed, j. can dispose of the appeal. as required by clause 36 of the lettetrs patent, the papers will be placed before the hon'ble the chief justice so that if he thinks fit to do so, a bench may be constituted whose opinion will enable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1960 (HC)

Meenakshi Ammal Vs. P.S. Muthukrishna Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-25-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad380; (1961)1MLJ94

..... been raised in the original memorandum of second appeal. the learned judge, however, granted to the plaintiff leave to appeal in pursuance of which she has filed the present letters patent appeal. 2. it was admitted by learned counsel tor the respondent that the point, which he sought to raise in and by c.m.p. no. 6969 of 1956 was ..... . a. no. 16 of 1956 and direct that it be restored to file and heard and disposed of in accordance with law. the appellant will get the costsof this letters patent appeal from the respondent. the costs of the second appeal will abidethe result. the appellant will be entitled to arefund of the court-fee paid on the memorandumof letters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 1960 (HC)

Bhagwandas Goenka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-12-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad47; 1961CriLJ273; (1960)IIMLJ458

..... contravention of article 20(3) as being testimonial compulsion for the production of documentary evidence.the difference between the language used in article 20(3) and the fifth amendment is patent. the american constitution limits the right of immunity from compulsory testimonial to a criminal case. in article 20(3) of our constitution that limitation does not appear. the protection against ..... did not know mr. leeclark at all, or, at the worst, the borrower could only be the jural entity of the express newspapers limited. we consider that this argument is patently fallacious, and that it ignores the realities of the situation. the appellant, as a director of the express newspapers limited, negotiated for the purchase of machinery on its behalf, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1960 (HC)

H. Venkata Sastri and Sons and ors. Vs. Rahilna Bi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-05-1960

Reported in : AIR1962Mad111

..... a charge, it would be void having regard to the fact that this court would have no jurisdiction over properties situate in the mofussil; vide clause 12 of the letters patent. in the view we are taking in regard to the construction of the decree, it is not necessary to determine the question whether it is not necessary to determine the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1960 (HC)

Tiruveriamuthu Pillai Alias B.T. Pillai Vs. the Municipal Council, She ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-14-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad230

..... to commit. thus an action will lie against a corporation for conversion for trespass, for wrongful distress, for assault, for negligence, for nuisance, for false imprisonment, for infringement of a patent, for keeping a dangerous animal or breach of trust, and even for fraud and for torts involving malice, such as malicious prosecution and libel."professor winfield in his text book .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 1960 (HC)

Hirudayasami Udayar Vs. Ramaswami Nainar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-23-1960

Reported in : 1961CriLJ246

..... hurt or wrongful restraint. the learned district magistrate before whom the matter was originally taken up in revision, declined to interfere, because he thought that the committing magistrate was not patently in error with respect to the application of the law to the facts of the present case.3. i think that interference by this courtat; this sage in criminal revision .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1960 (HC)

S.V. Krishnier Vs. A.R. Ramchandra Iyer and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-04-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad197

..... the learned judge based that decision, will be found stated and discussed in the bench decision of this court in ramasami aiyar v. krishna aiyar, : air1957mad431 , which was a letters patent appeal from the judgment of mack j. the learned chief justice (delivering the judgment on behalf of the bench) held that the provisions of the limitation act could not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1960 (HC)

Alagarswami Kone Vs. T.J. Andhoni

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-16-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad293; (1961)1MLJ158

..... mad. 419), this question of a claim for compensation by a tenant against a landlord based upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel came in for consideration. it was a letters patent appeal and the bench consist-ed of three learned judges, sir john wallis c. j., and oldfield and seshaglri aiyar, jj,, at page 190 seshagiri aiyar j. observed as follows .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1960 (HC)

Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. Marudan Chettiar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-12-1960

Reported in : AIR1962Mad150; (1962)1MLJ332

..... failure of consideration. it was pointed out that case fell within the category (b). the judgment of seshagiri aiyar j. was confirmed by oldfield and sadasiva aiyar, jj., in letters patent appeal.the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the classification given above by the learned judge was not exhaustive. according to the learned counsel, the instant case is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

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