Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1988 Page 1 of about 39 results (0.070 seconds)

Apr 18 1988 (HC)

The Proctor and Gamble Company Represented by Power of Attorney Holder ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-18-1988

Reported in : (1989)1MLJ36

..... that of the andhra pradesh high court in p. lakshmikantham v. ramakrishna pictures : air1981ap224 . that is not a case of interlocutory disposal. the letters patent appeals before the bench arose out of final disposals in which infringement of copyright was found and it was observed by the bench that there was no ..... appeal in a case which turned upon where the balance of convenience lay. after pointing out that grant of interlocutory injunctions in actions for infringement of patents is governed by the same principles as in other actions, lord diplock observed as follows: 'my lords, when an application for an interlocutory injunction to ..... neither party would be put to any irreparable damage or loss or prejudice. in that case, the suit was based on an alleged infringement of a patent and the defendant questioned the validity of the grant in favour of the plaintiff. the learned judge observed that an interim injunction will not be granted ..... patent ought not to have been granted under the provisions of section 26 of the patents and designs act, 1911, the court will not interfere by issuing a temporary injunction.10. in hubbard and ..... if the defendant disputes the validity of the grant and if the patent is new and its validity has not been established in a judicial proceeding till then and if it is endeavoured to be shown that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 1988 (HC)

Exxon Corporation, 1251 Avenue of the America, New York, U.S.A. Vs. Ex ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-27-1988

Reported in : AIR1989Mad182; (1988)IIMLJ516

..... not be construed ejusdem generis so that the letter written for example, by a patentee's solicitor before action brought and threatening to bring an action for infringement of the patent, must be regarded as within the formula 'where any person otherwise threatens any other persons....'13. having regard to these rulings, we find no difficulty in upholding the argument of ..... ejusdem generis as laid down in skinner and co. v. perry (1893) 10 rfc 1. learned counsel also relies on justice rajagopala ayyangar's report on the revision of the patents law, wherein the two cases in skinner and co. v. perry (1893) 10 rfc 1(5) and benmax v. austin motor co. ltd. (1953) 70 rpc 284 have been cited .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1988 (HC)

Sivalingam Vs. Sakthivel, Rep. by His Power of Attorney Agent Kunjitha ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-22-1988

Reported in : (1988)2MLJ167

..... ) by the admission made by the parties to the marriage who may at times by actuated by ulterior motives; but if, in addition thereto or independently, and evidence of the patents of the parties regarding celebration or solemnization of a marriage is available, it would go a long way in establishing the factum of marriage.11. even the passage extracted above .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 1988 (HC)

Exxon Corporation Vs. Exxon Packing Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-27-1988

Reported in : (1988)2MLJ516

..... not be construed ejusdem generis so that the letter written for example, by a patentee's solicitor before action brought and threatening to bring an action for infringement of the patent, must be regarded as within the formula' where any person otherwise threatens any other persons.13. having regard to these rulings, we find no difficulty in upholding the argument of ..... as laid down in skinner and co., v. perry (1893) 10 r.p.c. 5. learned counsel also relies on justice rajagopala ayyangar's report on the revision of the patents law, wherein the two cases in skinner and co., v. perry (1893) 10 r.p.c. 5 and benmax v. austin motor co. ltd. 70 r.p.c. 284, have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1988 (HC)

R. Kannan and Others Vs. Indchem Electronics Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-25-1988

Reported in : AIR1990Mad62

..... would indeed cause grave and substantial injustice to the appellants, and as such it will fall within the definition of the word 'judgment' coming within clause 15 of the letters patent, and an appeal is maintainable. he also in this connection cited a decision of a bench of this court in ramasayee agro industrial ltd. v. india sugars refineries ltd., : air1983mad194 ..... parties, as contemplated in test no. 3 in palaniappa v. krishnamurthi, : air1968mad1 (fb) it would not fall within the ambit of the expression 'judgment' in clause 15 of the letters patent, and as such this appeal is not maintainable. elaborating this argument, learned counsel would submit that the learned judge has not passed any final order, but suspended the interim injunction ..... been a completeness of adjudication.' 14. this highly vexed and controversialquestion as to what is the real concept and purport of the word 'judgment' in clause 15 of the letters patent once again came up for interpretation by a full bench of this high court presided over by three judges in palaniappa v. krishnamurthi, : air1968mad1 and the full bench in that ..... of the judicature acts.12. the lahore high court in firm badridas janakidas v. mathammal, air 1922 lab 185 held thus:--'the term 'judgment' in sec. 10 of the letters patent includes any interlocutory judgment which decides so far as the court pronouncing such judgment is concerned, whether finally or temporarily any question materially in issue between the parties and directly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1988 (HC)

R. Kannan and ors. Vs. Indchem Electronics Limited, Developed Plots fo ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-25-1988

Reported in : (1989)1MLJ147

..... caused grave and substantial injustice to the appellant will not fail within the meaning of the expression 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the letters patent of this court.21. this appeal, for the discussions made above, is, in our view, not maintainable, and consequently is dismissed. but in ..... substantial injustice to the appellants, and as such it will fall within the definition of the word 'judgment' coming within clause 15 of the letters patent, and an appeal is maintainable. he also in this connection cited a decision of a bench of this court in ramasayee agro industries limited v. ..... no. 3 in palaniappa v. krishnamurthy : air1968mad1 it would not fall within the ambit of the expression 'judgment' in clause 15 of the letters patent, and as such this appeal in not maintainable. elaborating this argument, learned counsel would submit that the learned judge has not passed any final order, ..... . this highly vexed and controversial question as to what is the real concept and purport of the word 'judgment' in clause 15 of the letters patent once again came up for interpretation by a full bench of this high court presided over by three judges in palaniappa v. krishnamurthy ( : air1968mad1 ..... badri das janakidas v. kathammal and ors. a.i.r. 1922 lah.185 held thus:the term 'judgment' in section 10 of letters patent includes any interlocutory judgment which decides so far as the court pronouncing such judgment is concerned, whether finally or temporarily any question materially in issue .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1988 (HC)

Pillaiyar Soda Factory Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-29-1988

Reported in : 1989(20)ECC93; 1989(24)LC574(Madras); 1989(39)ELT383(Mad)

..... excise and others, w.a. 257 of 1988 of this court, are decisions in which the impugned order did not suffer from the vice of patent incorrectness or manifest misrepresentation as is the case on hand. these decisions are not, therefore, relevant for the purpose of this case. 17. in ..... . further, i have held that the order of collector of central excise holding that the five trade marks or brand names are deceptively similar is patently unreasonable, and his interpretation of explanation i to notification no. 148/82-c.e., dated 22.4.1982 is based on an incorrect interpretation thereof ..... failed to correctly interpret the cope of this explanation and has read into it something which is not there. his decision is based on a patent misconstruction of the aforesaid explanations. it follows that the petitioners, who are manufacturing and selling aerated waters under different trade marks or brand names ..... other. the conclusion of the second respondent collector of central excise that these trade marks are identical with and deceptively similar to one another is patently unreasonable. 12. assuming without admitting that these five trade marks or brand names are deceptively similar to one another, can the petitioner be said ..... ever take but the court can interfere, if the conclusive arrived is totally unreasonable or the decision is based on patent misconstruction of the entry, when the findings of the department as to whether the particular goods are covered by particular item in the excise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1988 (HC)

Sengunthar Higher Secondary School Committee, Thuraiyur Vs. the Princi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-07-1988

Reported in : (1989)ILLJ252Mad

..... had not obtained the approval. on 9th august 1982 it sought for approval and on 21st august 1982 itself the order of removal having been passed, there has been a patent omission to comply with the statutory requirement in passing the order of removal. the chief educational officer refused to grant approval on 15th october 1982. hence when the statutory requirement ..... a case wherein the order as such, is infested with any illegality or any statutory non-compliance, then it has the necessary discretion to dispose of the matter on such patent illegality being made out, without going into the merits of the matter. it found, and in fact admittedly on the day when the order of removal was passed by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1988 (HC)

Sakkarathayammal and ors. Vs. Shanmugavel Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-05-1988

Reported in : (1990)2MLJ175

..... rs.40 monthly from 1-6-1974 till recovery of possession. on the appeal learned judge of this court in a.s. no : 541 of 1977 confirming it, this letters patent appeal is preferred.9. the learned judge proceeded on the basis that if the validity or otherwise of exhibit b-1, the settlement deed dated 16-9-1968 is decided ..... relevant factors relating to the plea of fraud practised upon sankaralinga, and as none of the conclusions of the learned judge are based on relevant evidence on record, this letters patent appeal is allowed, resulting in the suit being dismissed with costs throughout.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1988 (HC)

Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-06-1988

Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ923Mad

..... clearing the hurdle of condonation of delay. without doing that, there could not be a consideration of the main matter on merits. the first respondent, in my view, committed a patent error when he passed the impugned orders proposing to deal with the main matters on merits as well as from the angle of delay. hence, the first respondent was not .....

Tag this Judgment!


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