Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1986 Page 3 of about 28 results (0.024 seconds)

Aug 06 1986 (HC)

T.C. Kannan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by the Commr. and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-06-1986

Reported in : (1987)1MLJ294

..... public service commission. this, in our view, is the correct construction which should be placed on the proviso which came into force on 1st april, 1980. in view of the patent infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings we ' need not go into the merits of the findings and the only alternative is to quash the order made on 29th april, 1980. if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1986 (HC)

A. Shanmugham Vs. Lakshmipathy Naidu and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-19-1986

Reported in : (1987)1MLJ320

..... of his decree and empowered the executing court to set aside the sale if he purchases the property without such permission. the allahabad amendment dispensed this condition. because of this patent inconsistency section 97(1) of the amending act is attracted. but, the case on hand is entirely different. order 21, rule 90 of the principal act is totally silent about .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1986 (HC)

Nirmala Industries, Uthagamandalam, Nilgirls Dt. by Its Sole Proprieto ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-09-1986

Reported in : (1987)2MLJ3

..... overriding effect. in union of india v. ram kanwar : [1962]3scr313 , it was held that though the limitation act provided only a period of 20 days for filing a letters patent appeal, the high court rules provided for a limitation period of 30 days, and as such, the high court rule would constitute a special law within the meaning of section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1986 (HC)

Fathima Automobiles Vs. P.K.P. Nair

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-06-1986

Reported in : (1986)1MLJ216a

..... than that of dhanabagiammal, who inducted him admittedly into possession albeit she happens to be the owner. if so his obstruction is liable to be removed.7. further, it is patent from the facts that the sub-tenant admittedly claimed under the judgment-debtors (the joint tenants), that dhanabagiammal claims only under the sub-tenant and that the present petitioner through .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1986 (HC)

Abbas Bhai and Two ors. Vs. T. Deivayani Ammal and Two ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-04-1986

Reported in : (1986)1MLJ288

..... contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not. i have already referred to the relief claimed in the plaint. therefore, it is patent that the interlocutory application filed by the respondent herein, though quoted order 39, rules 1 and 2, c.p.c. will not fall within those provisions. then the court has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1986 (HC)

Katha Pillai Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, Represented by Its Secre ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-07-1986

Reported in : (1986)1MLJ301

..... to step into the shoes of the manager and institute a suit as contemplated under article 96. it is therefore futile for the appellants to contend that the suit was patently barred by limitation on the date it was filed.ismail, j. as he then was, also referred to an earlier pronouncement of his in the state wakf board, madras v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1986 (HC)

Sridharan Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, and Ano ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1986

Reported in : (1987)59CTR(Mad)231; [1987]165ITR710(Mad)

..... the legislature to decide the basis of taxation and to alter it from time to time and unless it is conclusively substantiated before this court that the taxing act has patently transgressed the equality provision, there will be no room for striking down such legislation or the order passed on the basis of such legislation. in the matter of taxation laws .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1986 (HC)

A. Perumal Vs. R. Jayaraman and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Mad115; (1987)IIMLJ19

order1. application no. 89 of 1985 was origin ally filed by the plaintiff in the suit c.s. 139/83 namely . minor perumal represented by his guardian and next friend his mother a. rajeswari (since declared as major) against the defendants in the suit for setting aside the order dated 22-11-84 in c.s. 139/83 dismissing the suit, and for restoration of the suit to the file of the original side of this court. application no. 1739/86 is filed by the first defendant in the suit c.s. 139/83 to dismiss the application no. 89/85 on the ground that it is not maintainable. since both the applications are connected, both are taken up together for disposal and the parties are referred to as per their rank in application no. 89 of 1985. 2. the facts of the case are briefly as follows:- the applicant filed the suit c.s. 139/83 for specific performance on the basis of an agreement by which the first respondent/first defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the applicant for a sale price of rs. 1,10,000/-. in december, 1983, a consent memo was filed into court signed by the applicant and the defendants in the suit, containing the following salient features: - 1. the first defendant/first respondent agrees to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the suit property for a consideration of rs. 1,60,000/- as per the draft sale deed attached to the consent memo, in view of the guideline value, before the sub-registrar; 2. the first respondent acknowledges the payment of rs. 30,000/- .....

Tag this Judgment!


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