Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1996 Page 1 of about 95 results (0.061 seconds)

Mar 15 1996 (HC)

R. Doraiswamy, Prop. Santha Industrials Vs. Integrated Engineering Ind ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-1996

Reported in : (1996)1MLJ554

..... therefore after research and thinking a model leading to a new type of wet grinders are designed by the plaintiff and the same has been registered with the controller of patents and designs who had issued certificates for the same on 21.10.1982. these certificates issued by the controller have also been exhibited before the trial court as exs. a ..... wet grinders is in use for a long time, having been manufactured by many manufacturers. the application of many manufacturers for registration of their design are pending with controller of patents and designs. one of them is one vijayan who is the technical adviser of the defendants. since the design is neither novel nor original, and since the tilting type of ..... type' wet grinder which is a new type of grinder. this type is the first of its kind and a novel one. the plaintiff has applied to the controller of patents and designs for registration of its design of 'tilting type' wet grinders and obtained certificates of registration under registration nos.152396, 152397 and 152398 dated 21.10.1982. the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1996 (HC)

Fathima Tiles Vs. Sudarsan Trading Co. and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-17-1996

Reported in : (1996)2MLJ580

..... trade mark has special characteristics. the relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:the right of property in a trade mark had special characteristics. one, which it shared with patents and with copyright, was that it was a monopoly, that is to say, it was a right to restrain other persons from using the mark. but it was an adjunct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1996 (HC)

Major S. Veerasamy Vs. the Management of Andhra Special and Cultural A ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)CTC740

..... p.a.no. 123 of 1990 and the matter was referred to a full bench. it is therefore, clear that in that case the letters patent appeal was preferred against the order passed in the sub-application filed in the contempt application and not against the order, dismissing the contempt application. ..... of court holding that no commission of contempt of court is established. therefore, in such a case, it if is held that the letters patent appeal is maintainable, it would result in defeating the object contained in section 19 of the contempt of courts act. hence we are of the ..... . but. the question is whether such a power could be exercised in a proceeding which is not maintainable before it. therefore, unless this letters patent appeal is maintainable, the jurisdiction as stated in paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgment cannot be exercised. the proceeding in question is the one arising ..... order of the court. under those circumstance, the learned single judge awarded costs of rs. 10,000. while considering the maintainability of the letters patent appeal preferred against the order the division bench in the aforesaid marappan case took note of the observations contained in para 27 of the full ..... of the contempt of courts act would lie against the order of punishment and not against the order dismissing the contempt application. therefore, the letters patent appeal is filed on the ground that the order under appeal amounts to judgment and hence the appeal is maintainable, irrespective of the fact that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1996 (HC)

The Managing Director, Nadippaisai Pulavar K.R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-1996

Reported in : AIR1997Mad204

..... 'it is also well established that it is only when an order of a tribunal is violatlve of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a court can justifiably intervene under article 227 of the constitution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1996 (HC)

Thuthukudi Thanpadu Uppu Ettrumathi Vivaparigal Sangam, TuticorIn and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-09-1996

Reported in : AIR1996Mad459; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)158

..... , moral economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in part iv of the constitution of india. it is needless for us to emphasize thatthe notification in question is patently for the good of the public in eradicating iodine deficiency disorders which have been found prevalent in various parts of tamil nadu.19. in rhagwan das v. municipal corporation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1996 (HC)

The Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar R.K. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills V ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)CTC186

..... that : 'it is also well established that it is only when an order of a tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fairplay or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a court can justifiably intervene under article 227 of the constitution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 1996 (HC)

Adham Rowther Vs. Sub-inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch and An ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-09-1996

Reported in : 1997CriLJ529

..... essential for rendering justice; that means to adjudicate the whole matter in hand in the proper legal perspective and for the just decision of the case. the above ingredients is patently in built in the section itself as it shall be essential to the just decision of the case, and that therefore, only if the court gets satisfied fully of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1996 (HC)

Somasundaram Vs. Thangaraju

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-16-1996

Reported in : (1997)2MLJ228

..... in such appellate jurisdiction, the high court exercised the powers of a court of error. so understood, the appellate power under the letters patent is quite distinct in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language.24. there was no question before the supreme court in that ..... thirumalai chettiar : air1985mad283 without practically giving any independent reasons, had preferred to follow the earlier decision of the madras high court in the letters patent appeal mentioned herein above. with respect, we are unable to follow the aforesaid two decisions of the madras high court not only because of ..... expressly preserved.it was argued that the effect of the above sentence was to hold that an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent was maintainable, even against an order passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. the division bench expressed the opinion that the judgment in ..... on the other hand, the supreme court recognised the position that a legislative enactment passed by the indian legislature would prevail over the provisions of letters patent.14. in radhey shyam v. shyam behari singh : [1971]1scr783 , on which strong reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant, ..... orders of the learned single judge, though it was an interlocutory order, since the appeal would lie to the division bench under the letters patent, this court held that against the interlocutory orders passed by the single judge, l.p.a would be maintainable. that ratio, therefore, is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1996 (HC)

P.R. Sundaravadanam and ors. Vs. P.R. Vimala and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-13-1996

Reported in : (1997)1MLJ618

..... for the case on hand. in this case, we are only dealing with the letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single judge condoning the delay of 3,670 days in filing the appeal. as we are not hearing the first ..... the power of the court imposed by sees. 100 and 101 of the code of civil procedure cannot be made applicable to an appellate court hearing a letters patent appeal for the simple reason that the single judge of the high court is not a court subordinate to the high court. this judgment is also not relevant ..... counsel for the respondents is reported in asha devi v. dukhi sao : [1975]1scr611 , which deals with the power of a division bench hearing is letters patent appeal under clause 10 from the judgment of a single judge in first appeal is not limited only to a question of law under section 100 of the code ..... . no. 6549 of 1995 is allowed and the documents filed therein are received as additional evidence in the letters patent appeal.13. mr. a.l. somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in the letters patent appeal submitted that the learned judge has erred in exercising his discretion to excuse the inordinate delay of nearly one ..... ar. lakshmanan, j.1. for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the letters patent appeal.2. l.p.a. no. 69 of 1994 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the order of k. swamidurai, j., in c.m.p. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1996 (HC)

P.R. Sundaravadanam and 2 ors. Vs. P.R. Vimala and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-13-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)CTC147; (1997)IMLJ618

..... not relevant for the case on hand. in this case, we are only dealing with the letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single judge condoning the delay of 3,670 days in filing the appeal. as we are not hearing the ..... power of the court imposed by sections 100 and 101 of the code of civil procedure cannot be made applicable to an appellate court hearing a letters patent appeal for the simple reason that the single judge of the high court is not a court subordinate to the high court. this judgment is also ..... for the respondents is reported in asha devi v. dukhi sai, : [1975]1scr611 , which deals with the power of a division bench hearing a letters patent appeal under clause 10 from the judgment of a single judge in first appeal is not limited only to a question of law under section 100 of the ..... within four weeks from to- day. the petition is allowed.'8. aggrieved against the order of the learned single judge, the plaintiffs have filed the above letters patent appeal.9. by consent of parties, appeal no. 127 of 1994 was also posted along with the letters pattent appeal.10. the question posed for our ..... consideration in this letters patent appeal is, as to whether the respondents have given proper explanation and shown sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 3,670 days in filing the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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