Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1978 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.047 seconds)

Nov 20 1978 (HC)

Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-20-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad185; [1979]117ITR55(Mad)

..... acquired merely technical knowledge or knowledge for the manufacture of any particular item for a specified duration, then he had acquired only a licence to use the other party's patent and knowledge and the amount would constitute "revenue expenditure". in the present case, as we have pointed out already, there is no dispute and the terms of the agreement also ..... is unnecessary to reproduce the other portions of this clause.14. clause 13 dealt with accounts and clause 14 dealt with trade marks and trade names. clause 15 dealt with patents and clause 16 dealt with assignment and sub-licenses.15. clause 17 imposed a restriction on the assessee-company not to export the licensed products or sell the licensed products .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1978 (HC)

Venugopala Pillai Vs. Thayyanayaki Ammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-17-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad124

..... first defendant in o. s. no. 61 of 1966 on the file of the subordinate judge, chidambaram is the appellant. in order to appreciate the relevant facts in this letters patent appeal, a summary of events that took place long ago is necessary.2. one sarangapani pillai married arumbu ammal and had a daughter valliammal by name through her. sarangapani had ..... settlement or under will are non set and are to be ignored. in that sense, the learned judge allowed the appeal. it is as against this that the present letters patent appeal has been filed.7. mr. m.r. narayanaswami, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the relevant provisions of the hindu succession act, contends that the rights .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1978 (HC)

The Clan Line Steamers Ltd. Vs. Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Pvt. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-06-1978

Reported in : AIR1980Mad73

..... and for an injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from bringing about a breach of the said contract and leave was obtained under cl. 12, letters patent. but subsequently on the plaintiff coming to know that the 2nd defendant claimed to be a purchaser of, the same property under a sale deed, ..... added.15. in devidatt ranmiranjandas v. shriram, air 1932 bom 291, when the suit was instituted the plaintiffs obtained leave under cl. 12 letters patent on the allegation that the material part of the cause of action had arisen in bombay. but when however some defendants were subsequently added as party ..... of the court was required before the court could entertain any of the claim in the suit and leave was obtained under clause 12 letters patent to institute the suit at the time when the only claim made was under certain agreements. but by an amendment the company, in the ..... any business within the jurisdiction of this court through its agents and as such leave to sue should have been obtained under clause 12 letters patent, and for want of such leave the suit is not maintainable, the legal consequence arising from that situation would necessarily follow as has been ..... proposed 'fourth defendant and since the proposed fourth defendant is carrying on business in london, leave has to be necessarily obtained under-clause 12 letters patent before the proposed 4th defendant is actually impleaded in the suit,6. padmanabhan, j., after considering the matter with reference to the authorities cited by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1978 (HC)

Gordon Woodroffe and Co., Madras (P.) Ltd. Vs. C.D. Gopinath and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-21-1978

Reported in : AIR1978Mad374

..... in chittaranjan v. s.p. sahni, . inthat case an order refusing to grant an injunction pending the suit was held to be appealable under clause 15 letters patent (calcutta) following the full bench decision in tuljaram row v. alagappa(1912) ilr 35 mad 1. therein the court observed (at p. 470)-"the position, therefore ..... within the meaning of clause 15. the tests laid down therein for determining whether the order is a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 letters patent are to see-(1) if its effect is to put an end to the suit or proceeding so far as the court before which the suit ..... ofthe bom-bay high court had held that an order refusing to grant an interim injunction is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 letters patent as none of the rights of the parties in the litigation was determined in the proceedings and that the entire litigation was still at large. the ..... of this appeal. according to him an order refusing to grant an interim injunction pending the suit cannot be a judgment as contemplated by clause 15 letters patent and as such it is not appealable. the learned counsel refers to the decisions in shanti kumar v. home insurance co. new york, and putla rustomji ..... new york, the supreme court had to consider whether an order permitting amendment of a plaint will be a judgment within clause 15 letters patent and could be appealed against. the supreme court expressed (at p. 1722)-"in finding out whether the order is a judgment within the meaning of clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1978 (HC)

international Cotton Traders, Tatabad, Coimbatore Vs. P. Narayanaswami

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-06-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad36

..... court to dispose of i. a. no. 63 of 1975 on merits. it is against the order of ramanujam j. that the present appeal under cl. 15 of the letters patent has been filed.3. as we pointed out already, the matter lies in a very narrow compass. art. 123 of the schedule to the limitation act of 1963, reads as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1978 (HC)

National Match Works, Sivakasi Vs. S.T. Karuppanna Nadar (Died) and or ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-15-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad157

..... to have been served on the first respondent on 24-7-1963 before he filed the application before the assistant registrar of trade marks, madras, out of which this letters patent appeal has arisen.15. there can be no doubt that, as observed by maharajan, j., in his judgment, the registrar trade marks had unfettered discretion to grant or not to ..... mysore.'21. in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no interference with the judgment of maharajan j. is called for in this case. we accordingly dismiss the letters patent appeal but, under the circumstances of the case, with out costs.22. appeal dismissed. ..... varadarajan, j.1. this letters patent appeal has been filed against the judgment of maharajan j. in c. m. a. no. 164 of 1970, whereby the order of the assistant registrar of trade marks, madras, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1978 (HC)

Jameela Beevi and ors. Vs. Sheik Ismail

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-13-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad193; (1979)1MLJ82

..... respect, we disagree with the finding of n. s. ramaswami, j. who held that it is a gift in future. in view of the above observations, we allow the letters patent appeal and set aside the judgment in a.s. no. 755 of 1969 and also the decree in o.s. no. 38 of 1968 of the sub-court, nagapattinam, as ..... in praesenti. with these observations, the learned judge (n. s. ramaswami, j.) dismissed the appeal. it is against the dismissal of a.s. no. 755 of 1969, the above letters patent appeal has been preferred.4. it is contended and argued before us by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the gift with respect it item 1 of the c ..... sathar sayeed, j.1. the unsuccessful appellants in a.s. no. 755 of 1969 have preferred the above letters patent appeal. one sheik ismail filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in b, c and d schedule properties. the short case of the plaintiff was that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1978 (HC)

Krishnaswamy Reddiar Vs. Muthu Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-22-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad173

..... was in brahma form and. therefore, the husband will succeed to the properties of kumudavalli to the exclusion of her collaterals including the first defendant's vendor.12. the letters patent appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. no cost.13. appeal dismissed. ..... ramanujam, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of mohan j. dismissing a.s. no 142 of 1973 (pondicherry), preferred against the judgment and decree in o. s. no. 5 of 1972 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 1978 (HC)

Marimuthu Gounder Vs. Ramaswamy Gounder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-11-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad189; (1979)1MLJ343

..... by the defendants, the plaintiff would be entitled to the return of the sum of rs. 10,000/- with interest as claimed. it is as against this, the present letters patent appeal has been filed. 2. mr. palaniswami strenuously contended that as the amount is in the nature of earnest money, it could be forfeited notwithstanding the absence of proof of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1978 (HC)

The Clan Line Steamers Ltd. Vs. Gordon Woodroffe and Co. and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-06-1978

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ349

..... such an amendment merely for the reason that it was a suit instituted after obtaining previous leave to sue under clause 12 of the letters patent. it does not also preclude the plaintiff from giving effect to such an order by carrying out the amendment or presenting an amended plaint ..... 15. in devidatt ramniranjandas v. shriram narayandas : air1932bom291 when the suit was instituted the plaintiffs obtained leave under clause 12 of the letters patent on the allegation that the material part of the cause of action had arisen in bombay. but when however some defendants were subsequently added as ..... 23 and benoy shankar v. chhotelal : air1952cal343 , summarised the result of those authorities as follows:1. where leave under clause 12 of the letters patent is necessary, the granting of such leave is the condition precedent to the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. therefore, such leave is ..... and since the proposed fourth defendant is carrying on business in london, leave has to be necessarily obtained under clause 12 of the letters patent before the proposed fourth defendant is actually impleaded in the suit.6. padmanabhan, j. after considering the matter with reference to the authorities ..... the principal, first defendant-company; and application no. 1742 of 1978 was filed by the plaintiff for leave under clause 12 of the letters patent to institute the suit against the proposed fourth defendant. leave was thereupon granted on 20th april, 1978. it is to revoke that leave that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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