Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.026 seconds)

Sep 27 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. Rathnam Nadar.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-27-1968

Reported in : [1969]71ITR433(Mad)

..... . never advertise. they canvass a small market, now principally at nottingham since german manufacturers have learnt to supply their own markets. they have no trade-mark, sign, badge, or patent; any patents for machinery that there may be have been treated as of no account. one machine is practically as good as another, and the product is so uniform that anyone who ..... capital gains are assessable in the case of transfer of goodwill, the indian act did not have in contenplation, when enacting section 12b, that self-created a assets like copyright, patents and goowill should be subjected to capital gains arising on their transfer. it is enought to say that, complex and difficult as this question is, we are not satisfied a ..... acquired. sophian in his book on taxation of capital gains gives 'goodwill' as an example of property created by the person disposing of it as also paintings, sculptures, copyrights and patents. he gives the example of a diamond picked up in a street or a land over which squatters title had been obtained as example of a property coming to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1968 (HC)

Dr. H.T. Vira Reddi Vs. Kistamma

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-12-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Mad235

..... adage has to be applied in a matrimonial action. 21. learned counsel for the respondent however relied upon : air1967mad85 . to state that this court whilst exercising jurisdiction under the letters patent ought not to interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the learned appellate judge. : air1967mad85 was a case in which venkatadri, j., virtually heard a second appeal in a ..... findings of the learned single judge of this court. it is, for this reason, that, barring appeals from the decisions in the original suits, other appeals under clause 15 letters patent, like writ appeals or appeals from orders of remand or decisions rendered by a single judge in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction (not being second appellate jurisdiction) are posted ..... . in view of the plain, unqualified language of clause 15 and the clear pronouncement of the supreme court, it is unnecessary to elaborate the point further. 7. in a letters patent appeal preferred, where leave has been granted by a single judge, while disposing of a second appeal, the position will be different, for the obvious reason, that the bench bearing ..... judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; ...............' adverting to the unqualified nature of the right of appeal under a similar provision (clause 10 of the letters patent of the lahore high court) the supreme court in ladli prasad v. karnal distillery co. ltd., : [1964]1scr270 observed thus-'manifestly the clause confers an unqualified right of appeal to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1968 (HC)

Elumalai Panchayat Board by Its President and anr. Vs. Guruswami Nadar ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-06-1968

Reported in : AIR1970Mad364; (1970)2MLJ112

..... upheld on the basis of a custom. we refrain from discussing this question as we have come to the same conclusion as alagiriswami j, though on different grounds. the letters patent appeal is dismissed; but in the peculiar circumstances with no order as to costs. ..... 1. in this letters patent appeal the question canvassed is whether the mahimai collections made by the elumalai panchayat in the district of madurai would constitute "in come" within the meaning of section 58 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1968 (HC)

Abdul Razack Sahib Vs. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-24-1968

Reported in : AIR1970Mad14; 1970CriLJ55

1. this appeal has been filed under letters patent from an order of committal of the respondent for contempt in a pending civil revision petition in this court. the civil revision petition arises out of proceedings under the madras .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1968 (HC)

H.T. Vira Reddi Vs. Kistamma

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-12-1968

Reported in : (1969)1MLJ366

..... matrimonial action.29. learned counsel for the respondent however relied upon subbarama reddiar v. saraswati ammal : (1966)2mlj263 , to state that this court whilst exercising jurisdiction under the letters patent ought not to interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the learned appellate judge. subbrama reddiar v. saraswati ammal : (1966)2mlj263 , was a case in which venkatadri, j ..... learned single judge of this court. it is, for this reason, that barring appeals from the decisions in the original suits, other appeals under clause 15 of the letters patent, like writ appeals or appeals from orders of remand or decisions rendered by a single judge in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction, (not being second appellate jurisdiction), ..... cannot be imported into an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. an earlier decision of the patna high court in ramaswarup singh v. muneskwar singh : air1964pat76 , took the view that section 100, civil procedure code, would apply to a bench hearing ..... finding of fact arrived at by a single judge of the high court in a first appeal is not open to challenge under clause 15 of the letters patent and that the letters patent appeal is in the nature of rehearing of the appeal, clause 15 being differently worded from section 100, civil procedure code. the inhibition in section 100, civil procedure code, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1968 (HC)

Eswari Pillai Vs. Madhavan Pillai and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-12-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Mad227

..... result.in : air1936mad134 , the petitioner, whose second appeal had been dismissed by a single judge, applied for leave to file an appeal under the letters patent and it was dismissed stating that the court could not find any ground for granting the leave asked for. the petitioner then filed another petition asking for ..... , of this court in : air1950mad216 .8. there is also a practical difficulty in holding that the order refusing or granting leave to file a letters patent appeal is subject to review. an order either granting or refusing leave says nothing more than that either leave is granted or that it is refused. it ..... which also held that the order refusing leave is a part of the judgment itself against which there is no appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. the effect of these decisions is that there can be no appeal not merely against the main judgment, but also against the order refusing leave except ..... the order refusing leave to file an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is not a part of the main judgment, but a separate order and that therefore, a review lies. in in re sridhar rao, air 1958 ..... appellate decree or order has been heard and disposed of bv a single judge an application for leave to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent of the high court shall be made orally and immediately after the judgment has been delivered.'before the andhra pradesh high court it was urged that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1968 (HC)

R. Venkataswamy Naidu and anr. Vs. Parasram Naraindas Alias Purushotta ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-30-1968

Reported in : (1969)2MLJ490

..... any further stage. the appeals arising from that order were confined only to the right of the petitioners under section 9. the judgment in the letters patent appeal took the particular form, because the question of valuation was necessarily dependent upon such a right. once the supreme court upheld the right of the ..... court is proper.3. it seems to me that the effect of the judgment of the supreme court which set aside the judgment in the letters patent appeal and restored that of anantanarayanan, j., is to confirm the remit order of the subordinate judge, including the valuation of the property. the question ..... to it to do so. on the other hand, the contention strongly pressed upon me is that the result of the decision in the letters patent appeal was to set aside the remit order as well as that of anantanarayanan, j., and that the supreme court's judgment was confined only to ..... order of the subordinate judge remitting the suit should be set aside. i may mention that neither the appeal before the single judge nor the letters patent appeal raised any question as to the propriety of the quantum of valuation arrived at by the subordinate judge. the matter was taken up on ..... anantanarayanan, j. (as he then was). this judgment is naraindas v. venkata-swami naidu : (1960)2mlj328 , and was dated 3rd may, 1960. a letters patent appeal against that judgment was, however, allowed, the learned judges holding that the petitioners had no right to get a conveyance of the land under section 9, in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1968 (HC)

Pamela Williams Vs. Patrick Cyril Martin

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-29-1968

Reported in : AIR1970Mad92

..... , independent of the provisions contained in the guardians and wards act, 1890, this court is competent to grant the prayer of the petitioner. no doubt clause 17 of the letters patent preserves the jurisdiction of this court over infants which it had inherited from the supreme court at madras and section 3 of the guardians and wards act, itself preserves that ..... jurisdiction. even though the petition itself does not invoke clause 17 of the letters patent of this court for the purpose of getting the relief it prays, mr. k. s. varadachari, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly stated that he is not standing on any ..... technicalities and contended that even on tie basis of clause 17 of the letters patent, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. das, j., in the matter of lovejoy patel : air1944cal433 , has stated--'that in exercise of the jurisdiction under clause 17 letters ..... patent of 1865, this court shall follow the principles adopted by the court of chancery in england and that this jurisdiction of the high courts has been expressly preserved by section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1968 (HC)

Munikrishna Reddy Vs. S.K. Ramaswami and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-19-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Mad389

..... under section 151 c. p. c. the judgment-debtors filed appeals to the high court which were allowed by horwill j. hor-will j.'s order was confirmed in letters patent appeal by the bench. the learned judges, following the decision in v. romaraghava rcddi v. raja of venka-tagiri : air1927mad355 , held that the court could not invoke the inherent powers ..... own costs in this revision petition.32. sri k. s. champakesa alyangar, the learned counsel, for the respondents, has asked for leave to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. considering that the point is not covered by any previous authority of this court, i should certainly have given leave to ap-peal, but it is clear from clause 15 ..... ofl the letters patent that there can be no appeal at all under that provision against, a decision rendered in a civil revision; petition. it is immaterial that originally this proceeding was as a ..... . a. no. 55 of 1967d/-6-11-1967 (mad), to the above effect.there i converted the civil miscellaneousappeal into a civil revision petition andallowed the civil revision petition. theletters patent appeal was held to benot maintainable because the order waspassed after converting the appeal intoa civil revision petition.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1968 (HC)

D. Sornam, by Power-of-attorney D.A.S. Swami Vs. State of Madras, Repr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-02-1968

Reported in : (1969)1MLJ207

..... practitioner. though the decisions prior to the advocates act have held right 'to appear' and 'the right to plead' in courts as distinct functions--see clause 10 of the letters patent ' to appear, plead or act' in the context one may construe the word.. 'appear' in section 32 of the advocates act to mean appear, to plead or address the court ..... act, we may refer to clause 10 of letters patent. that provided that no person whatsoever but such advocates, vakeels or attorneys shall be allowed to act or plead for or on behalf of any suitor in the high court ..... of the earlier decisions referred to have discussed the matter in the light of the provisions contained in clauses 9 and 10 of letters patent and in the legal practitioners act. clauses 9 and 10 of the letters patent, and parts of the legal practitioner's act now stand repealed by the advocates act (xxv of 1961). before referring to the advocates .....

Tag this Judgment!


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