Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1984 Page 1 of about 34 results (0.025 seconds)

Jun 21 1984 (HC)

Entertaining Enterprises, Madras and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-21-1984

Reported in : AIR1984Mad278

..... the protection of the copyright act and what are the punishments for infringement thereof will clearly fall within the legislative power of the parliament under entry 49 of list 1 'patents, inventions and designs; copyright: trademarks and merchandise marks.' and the state legislature cannot bring in new rights under the copyright act and make the infringement a more serious offence than .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1984 (HC)

Bank of Madurai Ltd. Vs. Balaramadass and Brothers and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-17-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Mad1; (1985)1MLJ245

..... of the suit, in case the defendants reside within its territorial jurisdiction. this results out of a careful reading of cl. 12 of the letters patent of 1865 and the jurisdiction for this extraordinary rule is supplied by the historical process. one may say that the reasons which militated for endowing the ..... all suits and actions that may be brought against the inhabitants of madras.'this makes clear that the intention of the legislature in the letters patent of 1800 as well as 1865 is to give the supreme court and then to the high court jurisdiction over suits, whatever be their nature ..... years from the date of establishment of the court. furnish me with any suggestions they make. or any amendments they may propose in the letters patent now transmitted. and i shall be glad if, in proposing alterations. the judge will put their recommendations as early as possible in the form in ..... jurisdiction. make a fundamental distinction between suits on immovables and all other suits. in this connection it has to be remembere d that the letters patent of 1862 were provisional in nature and were to be modified within three years in the light of the experience gained.7. para 7 of ..... the territorial jurisdiction of this court. it has application only when the third clause is not pressed into service. this cl. 12 of the letters patent. 1865. makes an exception to the universal principal of granting jurisdiction in respect of immovable property to the court within the jurisdiction of which the immovable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1984 (HC)

Prakash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P. Muthuswamy Gounder and Co.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-14-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Mad84

..... totally independent of the assessment of the money value of the loss or injury this decision rendered in relation to a case of delivery of goods, where the damage was patent, can have no application to the instant case, where the goods were apparently in good condition and the open delivery asked for by the respondent, was declined to be given ..... of the loss in money value may not always be a pre-requisite for redeeming the loss. in that view, it was held that if the loss or injury is patent and not latent, a person comes to know of the loss or injury as and when the goods are taken delivery of and the requirement of the law in such ..... of the loss or injury is assessed and ascertained in terms of money value. the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner related to a-case of patent damage plainly visible at the time of delivery of goods. in that case, the tea-chests were delivered on 2-7-1969 in a damaged condition, but the notice under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1984 (HC)

Pormusamy Pandaram Vs. the Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-18-1984

Reported in : AIR1986Mad33

..... within the mischief of the ratio adumbrated in s. 115 of the code. there has been a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by the, court below to a patent misconception of the position and this obliges me to interfere in revision.10. for the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. no costs. the court below will appoint the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1984 (HC)

The Workmen of Best and Crompton Industries Ltd., Represented by the G ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-08-1984

Reported in : (1985)ILLJ492Mad

..... of skilled work just stated with the categories of work listed out in exhibit m-16 by which the first respondent had obtained a licence as principal employer. it is patent that the 75 workmen were not employed for the purpose of doing the kinds of work listed out in exhibit m-16, but only for doing skilled work like quality .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1984 (HC)

Subramanian Asari Vs. Jayadevan Nair and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Mad372

1. this appeal under letters patent has been filed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in a.s. 36 of 1970, wherein the learned judge has confirmed the findings of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 1984 (HC)

Rukmani and ors. Vs. H.N. Thirumalai Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-26-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Mad283; (1985)1MLJ142

..... the other of the. division bench of this court we are inclined to follow the division bench decision of this court. we therefore hold that the letters patent, appeal filed in this case is maintainable.4. for the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and there will be an injunction restraining the respondent ..... rukmani l.p. a. 6 of 1983: 1984 tlnj 92. in that case after considering the relevant decisions of the supreme court, held that a letters patent appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a single judge under s. 104(l) of the code of civil procedure. of the two said decisions, one ..... : air1983bom120 . no doubt in that case, the court has held that the bar under s. 104(2) of the civil procedure code applies even to letters patent appeals and therefore letters patent appeal filed against the order under s. 104(l) refusing to grant temporary injunction were liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. however, a similar question ..... are not in a position to uphold the order under appeal on merits.3. at this stage, the' learned counsel for the respondent contends that the letters patent appeal is not maintainable in view of s. 104(2) of the code of civil procedure. s. 104(2) says that no appeal shall lie from ..... purchase the 8/12 or 2/3 share. this petition is dismissed.'the appellants in c. m. a. 869 of 1983 have filed this letters patent appeal.2. the order of the learned judge proceeds on the basis that the respondent has come to purchase 2/3rd share in the suit property and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1984 (HC)

Dexter S. Anthony Vs. June P. Anthony and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-1984

Reported in : (1985)2MLJ200

..... .m.s.no. l of 1978. the learned judges in the abovesaid three cases have taken into consideration the proviso to clause 35 of the letters patent and the definition of 'court' occurring in section 3(4) of the act and negatived the plea that this court is to exercise concurrent jurisdiction along ..... the district court will not go in conformity with the provision in section 3(4) of the act;5. even in clause 35 of the letters patent there is a provision by which the jurisdiction of the courts not established by the royal charter are preserved. clause 35 is as follows:matrimonial jurisdiction ..... jurisdiction.8. on an analysis of the provisions of act conferring jurisdiction on the high court and the district court and the clause 35 of letters patent i am not able to persuade myself to accept the proposition that the high court and the district court can exercise concurrent jurisdiction in matters arising ..... and 23 taken along with the above definition will indicate that both the courts will have concurrent jurisdiction.3. according to clause 35 of the letters patent the high court is vested with matrimonial jurisdiction throughout the state.7. in support of the petitioner's contention reliance is placed upon the decision of ..... interfered with. if a concurrent jurisdiction is meant, there is no need for the proviso to clause 35 of the letters patent. in the case reported in mrs. kamala nair v. n.p. kumaran nair : air1958bom12 chagle, chief justice, in interpreting clause 35 of the letters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1984 (HC)

Andalammal Vs. Rajeswari Vedachalarn (Deceased by Lrs.) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-17-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Mad321

..... . r. kesava aiyangar, learned counsel for the appellant, which were pregnant with the substantial substance, it may be useful to take note of the scope of the letters patent appeal. in the decision in ashu devi v, dukhi sao : [1975]1scr611 , the supreme court has held that the limitation on the power of the court imposed by ..... ss. 100 and 101 of the civil procedure code cannot be made applicable to an appellate court hearing a letters patent appeal from the judgment and decree of the court subordinate to the high court, for the simple reason that a single judge of the high court is not ..... a court subordinate to the high court and that there is no doubt that in an appropriate case a letters patent bench hearing an appeal from an order of a learned single judge of the high court in a first appeal heard by him is entitled to review ..... even findings of fact and that the contention of the appellant before them that the letters patent appeal bench was not in law entitled to reverse the concurrent findings of fact must be negatived and also that under cl. 15 of the letters ..... patent an appeal lies from a judgment and decree without any limitation being imposed upon the powers of the appellate court and the whole decree lies open .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1984 (HC)

M. Sevugan Chettiar and anr. Vs. V.A. Narayana Raja and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-18-1984

Reported in : AIR1984Mad334

..... and the trial court was directed to go into the question of the sufficiency or otherwise of the, amounts deposited for the purpose of redemption. as stated above. these letters patent appeals are directed against the orders of the learned judge in c. m. p. 16308 of 1982, and the appellants are the various respondents in c. m. p. 16308 of ..... case. we are obliged to refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in cmp 16300 of 1982 in cma 532 of : air1984mad27 against the orders in which these letters patent appeals has been preferred, which array is more or less similar in the civil miscellaneous appeal itself. in 1903 two items of properties were the subject matter of mortgage by ..... must be a deposit and that deposit shodld be made before the confirmation of sale. here the confirmation is yet to reach the finality. for all these reasons, the letters patent appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly, they are dismissed with costs.19. appeal dismissed. ..... nainar sundaram, j.1. in these letters patent appeals, the question which hits arisen for consideration relates to the scope of the contingency under which and the conditions on satisfaction of which the powers of court to be .....

Tag this Judgment!


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