Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1980 Page 4 of about 40 results (0.068 seconds)

Nov 04 1980 (HC)

Mohammed Khan Sahib Vs. Ali Khan Sahib and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-04-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ402

..... the plaintiffs father and defendants' mother and they cannot be brushed aside just as a mere coincidence. the trial court's finding that in karaikal region there are many muslim patents having the same name as mentioned in exhibits a-2 and a-3 can-not be accepted as there is absolutely no evidence in support of that finding. it therefore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1980 (HC)

Manickam Alias Manickavasagam and ors. Vs. Ramaswamy Gounder and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-04-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ163

..... to the a schedule property and that a decree for injunction should also be passed in his favour. the second prayer, which is loosely termed as an alternative prayer, is patently secondary in nature. as the plaintiff himself has stated, the second prayer has been sought for only if the court, for any reason, found that the plea of partition was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1980 (HC)

P.S. Mohana Srinivasan Vs. Girija

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-13-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ321

..... the appellant contends that the respondent had avoided being examined in court and the plea that she does not have resources even to travel a distance of 120 miles is patent falsehood when her father and mother could come to madras for the hearings. respondent's sister had also admitted that on the day in question, respondent came to her house .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1980 (HC)

Sudalai Muthu Pillai Vs. Santhanam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ347

..... firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or....and the rest is omitted as not relevant for the present occasion. it is plainly patent from section 69(3) (a) that the disability created under section 69(1) is no legal impediment to a party to the contract in enforcing the unregistered partnership arrangement for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1980 (HC)

R.S.K. Chandrasekaran Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-15-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ491

..... good faith for consideration, and that therefore that question did not arise. it is the correctness of this conclusion of the learned judge that is canvassed in the present letters patent appeal.3. section 28(2) of the provincial insolvency act provides for the vesting of the property in the official receiver on the making of an order of adjudication, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1980 (HC)

Kuppuraj Vs. K. Arjunan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-16-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ222; 1993LW711

..... sole ground, namely, bar of limitation under article 67 of the schedule to the limitation act. it is the correctness of this conclusion that is challenged in the present letters patent appeal, with the leave of the learned judge.4. we are clearly of the opinion that the conclusion of the learned judge is erroneous. article 67 of the schedule to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 15 1980 (HC)

R. S. Muthuswami Gounder Vs. A. Annamalai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-15-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ258

..... in the associated cement companies limited v. l. s. ramakrishna gowder : air1965mad318 . referred to above, a decision of veeraswami, j., as he then was, came up for consideration in letters patent appeal no, 12 of 1963. the learned single judge, while affirming the title of the appellant to 79 cents of land, held that in the circumstances it would be unjust .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Engine Valves Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-1980

Reported in : (1980)19CTR(Mad)274; [1980]126ITR347(Mad)

balasubrahmanyan, j. 1. the question referred to us for decision by the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras, in this reference by way of case stated under s. 256(1) of the i.t. act, 1961, relates to the rate of depreciation allowance on a canteen building inside the precincts o a factory run by the assessee, messrs. engine valves ltd., madras. the assessee manufacture engines valves, which are components of internal combustion engines, in a factory of its own. in the account year ended march 31, 1972, relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee claimed depreciation allowance at the rate of 10 per cent. on the written down value of the canteen building. there was no dispute that the building was a second class building. the ito, however, granted depreciation allowance only at the rate of 5%. he rejected the claim of the assessee that the canteen building must be regarded as a factory building and was entitled to a doubling of the ordinary rate of depreciation eligible for second class buildings. the disallowance of the depreciation amounted to rs. 12,950. 2. on appeal by the assessee, the aac held that the fact that the workers employed in the factory were using the canteen building was no reason for treating the canteen building as a factory building for allowing the higher rate of depreciation to factory building was that by reason of the nature of the work being carried on therein, it was susceptible to extra wear and tear. on that principle, according to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1980 (HC)

Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam and Charities by Its Secretary, N. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-06-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ42

..... noshing else.... the person for whose benefit the land is proposed to be acquired has no place in the exercise of the sovereign power by the state. this is the patent reason why the act has limited the scope of the lis in regard to acquisition between the owner of the land and the sovereign state. as regards the leave being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 1980 (HC)

Management of Enfield India Limited Vs. Second Additional Labour Court ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-22-1980

Reported in : (1981)IILLJ287Mad

1. the management of the enfield india limited, madras is the petitioner in the above two writ petitions. w.p. no. 1243 of 1978 is to quash the order dated 27-12-1977 passed by the labour court, madras, while w.p. no. 1242 of 1978 is to quash the award passed by the labour court on 24-1-1978. the facts of the case may be briefly set out as follows. one mohan, the second respondent herein, was employed in salvage department of the petitioner-management. on 24-3-1976 at about 3-15 p.m. when the senior engineer mr. rajagopal asked one workman jesudoss to carry out the work of filing of clutch plates mohan intervened and shouted using vulgar language against the workers and the management. the conduct of the second respondent prevented the work being completed. as a result the management served a show-cause notice to mohan calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. a domestic enquiry followed. in the domestice enquiry mohan was given every opportunity to defend himself. the enquiry officer found the charge levelled against mohan proved. having regard to the gravity of the misconduct proved against him and his past record of service, the management dismissed him from service by its order dated 11-5-1976. thereafter, the non-employment of mohan was referred by the government of tamil nadu for adjudication by the labour court, madras. the labour court took the dispute on file as i.d. no. 154 of 1977. before the labour court, the secretary .....

Tag this Judgment!

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