Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.029 seconds)

Mar 21 1966 (HC)

The Pilot Pen Co. (India) Private Ltd., Madras Vs. the Gujarat Industr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-21-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Mad215

..... i have stated has filed a petition for cancellation of the registration of the defendant's design and for a direction to the controller general of patents and designs to remove the entry of the registration from the register. there is, however, no evidence as to whether any such application has ..... improvement or the invention does not involve any inventive step etc. in such circumstances, where a patentee institutes a suit during the continuance of a patent acquired by him in respect of an invention against a person making, selling to using the invention without his licence, it is open to such ..... a new and original design in respect of fountain pen clips, having registered their design under no. 101410 dated 28-9-1959 under the indian patents and designs act 1911. it is the plaintiff's allegation that the several defendants have been manufacturing and marketing fountain pens in the name and ..... the original petitions by the defendants in each of these suits is for the cancellation of the registration by a direction to the controlled general of patents, designs and trade marks, calcutta to remove the entry of the said registration from the register.(2) the suits and petitions were tried together and ..... defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from using the type of clip of fountain pens imitating the plaintiff's design registered under the indian patents and designs act on 28-9-1959 and for accounts of the profits they have made by the sale of their pens with infringing type of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1966 (HC)

A.P.K. Narayanaswami Chettiar Firm, Palipalalam Salem Dt. Vs. V.K. Per ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-13-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Mad243

..... the dispute related to a design and not to a patent was lost sight of. the suit relating to a design, the order of transfer cannot be sustained. it is represented at the bar for the defendant that the ..... of course. i am not now called upon to discuss the matter.(4) it is not contended before me that the present case has anything to do with patents. on a perusal of the affidavit and counter in the matter and the order made it is obvious that somehow when the application was made, the fact that ..... the proviso to section 29(1) in respect of designs. nor by any provision under the act are the provision relating to transfer of suits on infringement of patent made applicable to legal proceedings in respect of designs. s. 54 of the act is of limited application as it only provides that the provisions of the act ..... to a design and covered by part ii of the act, is completely overlooked and the averments proceed as if the suit relates to an infringement of a patent. it is then stated that the defendant was entitled to take grounds by way of defence under s. 26 of the act and the suit must be transferred ..... the transfer of a suit on his file to this court, to be tried on the original side, purporting to act under sections 26 and 29 of the indian patents and designs act, 1911. the suit was instituted by the plaintiff under section 53 of the act for piracy of a design. the cause of action for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1966 (HC)

A.P.K. Narayanaswami Chettiar Firm Vs. V.K. Perumal Chettiar and Sons

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-13-1966

Reported in : (1966)2MLJ318

..... the dispute related to a design and not to a patent was lost sight of. the suit relating to a design, the order of transfer cannot be sustained. it is represented at the bar for the defendant that ..... of course. i am not now called upon to discuss the matter.4. it is not contended before me that the present case has anything to do with patents. on a perusal of the affidavit and counter in the matter and the order made it is obvious that somehow when the application was made, the fact that ..... the proviso to section 29(1) in respect of designs. nor by any provision under the act are the provisions relating to transfer of suits on infringement of patent made applicable to legal proceedings in respect of designs. section 54 of the act is of limited application as it only provides that the provisions of the act ..... to a design and covered by part ii of the act, is completely overlooked and the averments proceed as if the suit relates to an infringement of a patent. it is then stated that the defendant was entitled to take grounds by way of defence under section 26 of the act and the suit must be transferred ..... transfer of a suit on his file to this court, to be tried on the original side, purporting to act under sections 26 and 29 of the indian patents and designs act, 1911. the suit was instituted by the plaintiff under section 53 of the act for piracy of a design. the cause of action for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1966 (HC)

L.C.T.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. M.R. Krishnamurthy Chett ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-01-1966

Reported in : AIR1968Mad1

..... against the defendant after giving effect to the declaration. the plaintiffs had obtained leave to institute the suit from the judge sitting on the original side under clause 15, letters patent. the defendant's application to revoke or rescind the leave so granted to the plaintiffs was dismissed and the defendant preferred an appeal there-from. here too, a preliminary objection ..... order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis, just as an order declining leave to sue in forma pauperis, is indisputably, a 'judgment' within the meaning of cl. 15, letters patent.(19) in salmond on "jurisprudence", 11th edn., page 270, will be found a table set forth by the learned author, consisting of the entities rights (stricto sensu), liberties, powers, immunities ..... a single judge of the high court, on the original side, demanding security from the defendant, without furnishing reasons therefore:"no doubt an appeal lay against it under the letters patent but that is merely an internal appeal in a high court.........."in shankarlal aggarwala v. shankarlal poddar, thearea of debatable case-law earlier stressed in asrumati debi's case, is ..... order of a single judge of the high court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma paperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15, letters patent.in cork industries v. govindarajulu mudaliar, ,ramachandra iyer c. j. and ramakrishnan j. referred to this conflict, and, after a reference toasrumathi debi v. rupendra deb, pointed out that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 1966 (HC)

Subbarama Reddiar Vs. Saraswathi Ammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-16-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Mad85

..... , j.) was unable to agree, he really had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding in a second appeal.(15) in the light of the above analysis, we allow the letter patent appeal, set aside the decree of venkatadri, j. and restore the decree for judicial separation granted by the trial court. we also direct, under s. 25 of the hindu marriage ..... (1) this letters patent appeal has been instituted by one subbarama reddiar, the respondent before venkatadri, j. in c.m.s.a. 9 of 1964, form the judgment and decree of the learned judge. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1966 (HC)

Mohammed Habibullah and anr. Vs. Seethammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-04-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Mad123

m. anantanarayanan, c.j. (1) we are fully satisfied, after a careful consideration of the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, that this letters patent appeal ought not to be admitted. the facts are clear. the appeal is sought to be filed by the owner of a motor vehicle and by the insurance company, with ..... the courts. neither the owner of the vehicle, nor the insurance company, can be said to have suffered any prejudice, or to have sustained any ground of grievance. this letters patent appeal is dismissed.(6) appeal dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1966 (HC)

P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar and anr. Vs. C.T. Senthilnathan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-22-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Mad253

..... the letters parent will not prevail over such a bar; it is only if there is no such bar that the appeal lies under letter patent--vide the observations in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the text, at pages 1446 and 1447 of the report.(7) in this view, therefore, ..... considerable hesitancy, that he thought that there was no warrant for interference with a longstanding practice, which was to allow such appeals, under the letter patent, or to reopen the question, when earlier decisions appeared to have sustained the point of view that such appeals could be maintained, notwithstanding the explicit ..... principle was that enunciated in order xxi rule 63 c. p. c and the specific provision of an exception was cl. 15 of the letters patent or whether a reverse view should be taken. after noticing the prior authorities, such as sabhapathi chetti v. narayanswami chetti, (1901) 11 mad lj ..... be conclusive", and the legislature is explicit on this point. the argument, therefore, was that we should not merely because of clause 15 of the letters patent, proceed into the merits of the controversy, and differ from the learned judge (srinivasan j.) upon any conceivably different view of the facts. the affected ..... learned judge allowed the application and raised the attachment. the decree-holder has preferred this appeal from that judgment, under cl. 15 of the letters patent.(3) even apart from the merits, sri kesava aiyangar for the claimant-respondent 1 advanced the argument that such an appeal could not be allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1966 (HC)

S.V. Viswanathan Vs. G.P. Rangaswamy and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-11-1966

Reported in : (1966)2MLJ560

..... of tribunals, to act in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, and whenever and at whatever stage, their attention is drawn to the fact that there has been a patent violation of a constitutional provision, whether in legislating an enactment or in preparing a statutory instrument, the courts as well as tribunals have a duty to give effect to the ..... . consequently, he allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the election commissioner. the first respondent has filed the present appeal before us under clause 15 of the letters patent.12. the relevant provisions of the district municipalities act are the following:44(1) every person (whose name is included in such part of the electoral roll for any assembly ..... .) did. it is not disputed that, in writ jurisdiction, we have to accept that finding.p. ramakrishnan, j.11. the facts leading to this writ appeal filed under the letters patent against the judgment of srinivasan, j., in writ petition no. 2118 of 1964 are briefly the following. in the election for ward no. ix of the gobichettipalayam municipality held on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1966 (HC)

Mohammed Habibullah and anr. Vs. K. Seethammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-04-1966

Reported in : (1966)2MLJ378

m. anantanarayanan, c.j.1. we are fully satisfied, after a careful consideration of the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, that this letters patent appeal ought not to be admitted. the facts are clear. the appeal is sought to be filed by the owner of a motor vehicle and by the insurance company, with ..... the courts. neither the owner of the vehicle, nor the insurance company, can be said to have suffered any prejudice, or to have sustained any ground of grievance. the letters patent appeal is dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 1966 (HC)

T.M. Kannappa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-23-1966

Reported in : (1969)1MLJ212

..... a tax is compensatory or not is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities.16. no doubt this observation was made in the light of the compensatory tax levied by the act then in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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