Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1971 Page 1 of about 23 results (0.057 seconds)

Nov 26 1971 (HC)

R.A. Sathar and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee, Representing the Estat ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-26-1971

Reported in : (1972)1MLJ393

..... being an indivisible one the official assignee had no right to sell the share of the insolvent as if the insolvent had a definite share. this contention cannot be accepted. patents and trade marks, which belong to an insolvent, pass to the official assignee or receiver for the benefit of the insolvent's creditors (vide halsbury's laws of england, third .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1971 (HC)

Gnanabaranam Pillai Vs. Rathinam Pillai

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-12-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Mad364

..... . 21, civil p.c. on that view he allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for setting aside the sale. on leave granted by him, the appeal under the letters patent, comes up before us. 2. although section 47 is wide enough to cover this case, on account of the necessity to give effect to the rules under order 21, they ..... judgment of the first executing court are restored. the appellant is entitled to his costs throughout. 5. we would like to make it clear that the disposal of this letters patent appeal will not be construed as dismissing the execution petition. it would be open to the decree-holder to take further steps in that execution petition. appeal allowed.

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1971 (HC)

S.B. Muthumunia Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax a ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-06-1971

Reported in : [1972]85ITR12(Mad)

..... from the inception. the commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. there is therefore an apparent error as well as an irregular exercise of jurisdiction which is patent in the challenged order. i am unable to agree with the conclusion of the commissioner that there was proper and sufficient service of notice within the meaning of the provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1971 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-23-1971

Reported in : (1971)2MLJ502

..... bonus is the best, in the circumstances, or a more equitable method could have been devised, to avoid in certain cases undue hardship and that if the classification is not patently arbitrary, the court will not rule it discriminatory merely because it involves hardship or inequality of burden. it was further observed that even if the widsom of the legislature or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1971 (HC)

The Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs. the District Reve ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-23-1971

Reported in : (1973)1MLJ99

..... 15 days from the receipt of the notice why duty should not be levied against the petitioner-firm in respect of the manufacture or patent and proprietary medicines and whether such medicines contained tinctures or alcohol. the present writ petitions are filed seeking for the issue of a writ ..... __________________________________________________________________________________________after the amendment in 1961, the schedule was recast, thus : _________________________________________________________________________________________item description of rate ofno. dutiable goods duty._________________________________________________________________________________________medicinal preparations : 1. medicinal preparations, being patent ten per cent, ad valorem. or proprietary medicines, contain-ing alcohol, and which are notcapable of being consumed as ordi-nary alcoholic beverages.2. medicinal ..... , as the medicinal preparations manufactured by them according to the petitioner would not come under the schedule to the act. the petitioner was manufacturing patent and proprietary medicines from the very inception by adding tinctures containing alcohol. but they were not adding alcohol as such in manufacturing medicines. the ..... and toilet. preparations (excise duties) act 1955, (xvi of 1955) is ultra vires. the petitioners in each of the cases are manufacturers of patent or proprietary medicines carrying on business in the state of madras.2. we shall take up w.p. no. 1053 of 1968 by way of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1971 (HC)

Jayarama Naidu Vs. Tirupathi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-23-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Mad183

..... the suit. we have heard full arguments on either side and we are not inclined, therefore, to direct refund of the court-fee paid on the memorandum of the letters patent appeal.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1971 (HC)

Sethu Parvathy Ammal Vs. Bajji K. Srinivasan Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-21-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Mad222

..... is concerned, he agreed with the conclusion of the learned subordinate judge. he also recorded a finding that the collusion between the first defendant and the fifth defendant was quite patent. as far as the first point is concerned, the learned district judge held that the agreement was incomplete, since the mother of the first defendant had not executed the same ..... relationship between the parties and the evidence adduced by the fifth defendant himself, the courts below could not have come to any other conclusion and therefore in view of this patent position, even the learned counsel for the respondents did not seek to challenge this finding of the courts below on this aspect.4. arising from this aspect, there is one ..... first defendant. (his lordship here discussed the facts of the case and proceeded). for these reasons, i hold that the decision of the learned district judge in this behalf is patently erroneous in law and the appellant is entitled to a decree for specific performance against the defendants in the suit, in respect of the property proposed to be conveyed by ..... of the courts below that the sale deed in favour of the fifth defendant is a faked one; that the collusion between the first defendant and the fifth defendant is patent; and that they have entered into the sale transaction with a view to defeat the rights of the appellant under ex. a-1.14. there is only one other matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1971 (HC)

Vengammal and anr. Vs. Ramachandran (Minor) by Mother Jayalakshmi Amma ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-11-1971

Reported in : AIR1971Mad490; (1971)2MLJ280

..... hereby certify that court-fee stamps of the value of rs. 100 (rs. one hundred) only have been paid in the said s. r. 28236 appeal under clause 15 letters patent sought to be preferred against the judgment of this court dated 29-6-1962 and passed in a. a. o. no. 142 of 1960 and that the letter ..... patent appeal has not been numbered or heard by this court and that the said court-fee stamps of the value of rs. 100 (rs. one hundred only) have been punched .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1971 (HC)

Union of India Vs. Hoechast Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Bombay

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-09-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Mad465

..... purview of entry 28(27) and that the classification of the respondent's drug tetracycline hydrochloride injections as falling within entry 28-a was discriminatory.2. entry 28-a is patent of proprietary medicines as defined in clause (d) of section 3 of the drugs act, 1940 (xxiii of 1940) not containing spirit and not otherwise specified. 'the nature of duty ..... one antibiotic, and are free from other therapeutic ingredients, but not including penicillin in bulk and penicillin and its products specified in item nos. 28(26) and 28(26-a). patent and proprietary medicine, as defined in section 3(d) of the drugs act 1940, means 'a drug which is a remedy or prescription prepared for internal or external use of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1971 (HC)

P. Narayanasami Reddiar Vs. K.M. Jayarama Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-05-1971

Reported in : (1971)2MLJ369

..... single judge of the high court on the original side. the plaintiff-decree holder filed an appeal against the order of the high court under clause 15 of the letters patent and the original order was confirmed on appeal. the plaintiff thereafter instituted a suit under order 21, rule 63 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, to establish his right ..... intended the date of the original order to be the starting point so far as the suits mentioned in article 11 are concerned even when there has been a letters patent appeal. it appears to me that there are at least two answers to this argument. one answer is that the fact that the legislature in order to remove all doubts .....

Tag this Judgment!


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