Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.024 seconds)

Dec 10 1986 (HC)

N. Balakrishnan Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Represented by the Sec ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-10-1986

Reported in : (1987)IILLJ43Mad

..... . what are those exceptional cases or circumstances cannot be defined precisely and it will have to depend on the circumstances in each case. the claim made by the worker is patently frivolous or is highly belated or that the impact of the claim on the general relation between the employer and the employee in the region is likely to be adverse ..... the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) or not. if the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the appropriate government may refuse to make a reference. likewise, if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1986 (HC)

S. Guhan and ors. Vs. Rukmini Devi Arundale and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-19-1986

Reported in : AIR1988Mad1

..... cease to exist.' it does not even state that the scheme decree will come into force after the necessary or required steps are taken as prescribed under the statute. a patent illegality had come into existence by such a scheme decree being passed, because of non7compliance with the requirements of tamil nadu act 27 of 1975.56. on behalf of respondents ..... raise points as done because as held in sundara lyer v. varada iyer; (1935) 69 m u 300 : air 1935 mad 855 the powers under cl. 15 of the letters patent are very wide. hence, the order passed on i5-10-1985 cannot prevent appellants in this appeal to canvass the points which they have taken.43. the other contention of ..... air 1949 mad 127, on a new plea being raised, and which turned out to be a question of law, it was held that for the first time in letters patent appeal, such a point could be taken, even though it had not been raised either in the trial court or in the lower appellate court or in second appeal. on ..... held that a sanction granted under s. 92 c.p.c. is a 'judgment' and as against it an appeal is maintainable, as contemplated under cl. 15 of the letters patent. merely because a sanction is granted, it does not mean that such a suit can be decreed. for the purposes of granting sanction, certain relevant factors are taken into account .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1986 (HC)

P.R. Seetharaman Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-23-1986

Reported in : AIR1988Mad45

..... of the writ petition, resorted to such an appeal and the said second appeal is pending disposal. when we find that the order that has come to be passed is patently an unsustainable and an incompetent one, and when we do not get any convincing answer with regard to the plea of limitation, i do not think that it will be ..... admitted position) that the order was served, on a date later than 31-5-1979. when we see this factual position, this court has to conclude, that there was a patent error committed by the government of tamil nadu in entertaining the appeal petition, which was out of time, and deciding it on merits. it has been the uniform view of ..... opposite party controverting the allegations set out in the basic proceedings, presented before the court or the statutory tribunal and a case where the very particulars, as they stand disclosed, patently and non-controversially make out that the presentation is out of time. the present case falls under latter category. in the appeal petition dt. 1-10-1979, the date of ..... , if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. even this one month period had lapsed by the end of july iw9. patently, the appeal presented by r. sundaram on 11- 10-1979, was barred by limitation. i am not able to get any convincing answer from the learned counsel appearing for r .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1986 (HC)

The Management of Sree Lalithambika Enterprises, Salem Vs. S. Kailasam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-12-1986

Reported in : (1988)ILLJ63Mad

..... same salary he could not get compensation the learned single judge did not agree with this ruling also and confirmed the award made by the additional commissioner. hence this letters patent appeal. 5. it is strenuously contended by mr. krishna raju, learned counsel for the appellant, that the evidence of the manager of a bank, who was a disinterested witness, clearly ..... mohan, j.1. against the concurrent judgments of the additional commissioner for workmen's compensation, coimbatore and a learned single judge of this court, this letters patent appeal has been preferred in so far as the respondent has been awarded compensation in a sum of rs. 11,020.80 under the workmen's compensation act, hereinafter referred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1986 (HC)

Govindarajulu and Etc. Vs. Assistant Divisional Engineer,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-31-1986

Reported in : AIR1988Mad188; (1987)IIMLJ243

..... of law are invoked in notices and orders are passed without referring to relevant provisions, to rely upon the said decision of the supreme court and try to get over patent and negligent acts committed by quasi-judicial' authorities. decisions are rendered to make authorities to function lawfully and hot for enabling them to function negligently and ignorant of their powers ..... with before an order of eviction is passed. even though such safeguards have been conferred under the act, respondent had, as pointed out above, taken high-handed actions which are patently illegal.10. one other unfortunate feature in this batch of cases is that, on affidavits and petitions served upon respondent as early as july, 1981, and on reading them respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1986 (HC)

Govindarajulu and ors. Vs. Assistant Divisional Engineer, H. and R.W. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-31-1986

Reported in : (1987)2MLJ243

..... of law are invoked in notices and orders are passed without referring to relevant provisions, to rely upon the said decision of the supreme court and try to get over patent and negligent acts committed by quasi-judicial authorities. decisions are rendered to make authorities to function lawfully and not for enabling them to function negligently and ignorant of their powers ..... with before an order of eviction is passed. even though such safeguards have been conferred under the act, respondent had, as pointed out above, taken high-handed actions which are patently illegal.11. one other unfortunate feature in this batch of cases is that, on affidavits and petitions served upon respondent as early july, 1981, and on reading them, respondent and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1986 (HC)

Dasaprakash Bottling Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-04-1986

Reported in : [1986]159ITR690(Mad)

..... respect of the future profits is erroneous. ultimately, therefore, if this estimate made by the tribunal of about 20 per cent. of the overall surplus is not shown to be patently unjustifiable, then that estimate must necessarily be accepted as a finding in this reference. there is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the tribunal that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1986 (HC)

Muthian Vs. Syndicate Bank, Pollachi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-15-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Mad248; [1989]65CompCas333(Mad); (1988)IMLJ45

..... , especially as against the first defendant for whom the second defendant had stood surety, and who are both related as father and son, and are admittedly agriculturists since it is patent that the loan had been granted for purchasing a tractor for agricultural operations.13. section 21-a has come into existence by way of an amendment to the banking regulation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1986 (HC)

E.i.D. Parry India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-1986

Reported in : 1987(27)ELT64(Mad)

..... the impugned act, the recovery of central excise surcharge is fixed at three paise per unit and, therefore, the recovery of one per cent in excess with retrospective effect is patently illegal. 4. on behalf of the second respondent, it is stated that as tamil nadu act 29 of 1949 did not expressly provide for retrospective revision of tariff rates, tamil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1986 (HC)

T.A. Umapathy and anr. Vs. T.A. Masilamani

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-14-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Mad156

..... of passing of consideration lies entirely on the shoulders of the promisors, which burden has not been discharged by them as per the provisions of the evidence act. this is patent on a perusal of the evidence in the case.as a matter of fact, the very fact that they had affixed their thumb impressions in the promissory note, has not .....

Tag this Judgment!


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