Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1997 Page 1 of about 99 results (0.026 seconds)

Apr 12 1997 (HC)

N. Rajammal (Died) and Another Vs. P. Maragathammal and 28 Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-12-1997

Reported in : 1998(1)CTC314; (1998)IMLJ184

..... now as it was when lord coke reported 'heydon's case, 1584 (3) co pep. 7a: 76 e.r. 637 (v). in -eastman photographic material co. v. controller general of patents, designs and trade marks'1898 a.c. 571 (x) earl of halsbury reaffirmed the rule as follows:-my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1997 (HC)

The Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Shanmugha theatres and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-20-1997

Reported in : (1998)1MLJ89

..... , j. : the word 'judgment in clause 15 must be so constructed as to include the various kinds of judgments dealt with in other clauses of the letters patent. it must be understood as including preliminary or interlocutory judgments but not preliminary or interlocutory orders.the same has stood the test all these days and has received universal acceptance ..... ]3scr497 , were also cited which arose under the indian arbitration act. act 10 of 1940, by way of contrast, holding that an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent did not lie under certain circumstances. the decision in penugonda radhakrishnamurthy v. ethirajulu chetty : air1945mad184 was by a division bench consisted of sir alfred henry lionel leach, chief justice ..... decision reported in obedur rehman v. ahmedali bharucha : air1983bom120 , a division bench of the bombay high court held that section 104(2) applies also to letters patent appeals and therefore, letters patent appeal against order of single judge dismissing appeal filed under section 104 against order refusing to grant temporary injunction was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable under ..... suit premises. on appeal filed by the respondents, the learned single judge vacated the status quo order by order dated may 18, 1995. aggrieved, the appellate filed letters patent appeal and the division bench held that the appeals are not maintainable. the plaintiff preferred a further appeal by special leave. learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contends that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1997 (HC)

Central Bank of India Vs. Joseph and 20 ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-29-1997

Reported in : 1997(2)CTC1

..... of this court has also held that such mortgage suits cannot come under the term 'suits for land or other immovable property' spoken to in clause 12 of the letters patent.9. in view of the abovesaid provisions, particularly in view of the expression, 'which would be within the cognizance of the madras city civil court', in the above referred to ..... this court.6. the material portions of the said clause 12 of the letters patent run as follows:'... we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try ..... jurisdiction to try those suits.5. no doubt, this court, while the said suits were pending on its file, by granting leave spoken to in clause 12 of the letters patent, secured to itself such jurisdiction to try them, presumably on the footing that the cause of action has arisen partly within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1997 (HC)

Employees' State Insurance Corpn., Madras Vs. Shanmugha theatres, Coim ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-20-1997

Reported in : 1997(2)CTC725; (1998)IMLJ89

..... [1962]3scr497 were also cited which arose under the indian arbitration act. act 10 of 1940, by way of contrast, holding that an appeal under clause 15 of letters patent did not lie under certain circumstances. the decision in penugonda radhakrishnamurthy v. ethirajulu chetty, (supra) was by a division bench consisting of sir alfred lional leach, chief justice and ..... decision reported in bhedur rehman v. ahmedali bharucha : air1983bom120 a division bench of the bombay high court held that see. 104(2) applies also to letters patent appeals and therefore, letters patent appeals against order of single judge dismissing appeal filed under section 104 against order refusing to grant temporary injunction was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable under ..... finance corporation & others, (supra), as contended by mr. g. subramaniam. 33. mr. krishna rao, learned counsel for the respondents in one of the appeals submitted that the letters patent appeal is not maintainable. he cited the decision reported in umaji keshao meshram v. radhikabai, 99 l.w. 37 wherein the question fell for determination in the appeal before the ..... suit premises. on appeal filed by the respondents, the learned single judge vacated the status-quo order by order dated may 18, 1995. aggrieved, the appellant filed letters patent appeal and the division bench held that the appeals are not maintainable. the plaintiff preferred a further appeal by special leave. learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1997 (HC)

Nicco Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cethar Vessels Ltd. and Another

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-04-1997

Reported in : [1998]92CompCas748(Mad)

..... beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice. as regards finding of fact of the inferior court, the ..... . 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 fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept in or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a court can justifiably intervene under article 227 of the ..... well-settled by the decisions of the apex court but it is equally well-settled that for preventing grave and serious miscarriage of justice including one resulting from following a patently erroneous procedure or contravention of basic principles of justice and fair play, the supervisory and superintending jurisdiction conferred on courts by the said article remains always available. (vide trimbak gangadhar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1997 (HC)

Madras Labour Union and Another Vs. Management of Binny Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-12-1997

Reported in : (1998)1CompLJ305(Mad)

..... on loan without the prior approval of the banks and institutions during the course of their assistance. when such is the position, the impugned order of the second respondent is patently erroneous and illegal as well as contrary to the provisions of the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985. further, the petitioners were parties to the scheme, the present order ..... ) act, 1985, with reference to the first respondent company by holding that the company has ceased to be a sick industrial undertaking. according to the petitioners, the aforesaid order is patently erroneous and mala fide. it is also contrary to the admitted stand of the company itself that it is sick and also the provisions of the aforesaid act. it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1997 (HC)

M.V.S. Sastry Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-06-1997

Reported in : [1998]232ITR651(Mad)

..... s. 40a(7) of the act was not made applicable in the original assessment, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which is an obvious and patent mistake warranting rectification under s. 154 of the act. in order to support this contention, reliance was placed upon a decision of the calcutta high court in cit vs . e ..... (1) of the 1922 act and ss. 2(31), 113 and 154 of the 1961 act has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. a decision on a debatable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1997 (HC)

English Electric Co. of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-14-1997

Reported in : (1998)144CTR(Mad)183

..... by the writ court.6. the apex court has held in series of cases that for any findings on the question of fact no writ will lie unless there are patent errors leading to manifest injustice. [vide ameteep machine tools vs . labour court, haryana : (1980)iillj453sc and munilal vs . prescribed authority : air1978sc29 . therefore the question whether these complaints have been lodged ..... of fact to be considered by the trial magistrate and this court cannot go into that question at this stage when especially there is nothing to show that there is patent error leading to the manifest injustice. further, when the petitioners have got opportunity to raise these matters before the learned addl. chief metropolitan magistrate himself, they cannot come forward with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1997 (HC)

M.V.P.B. Nammalwar Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Relilgious and Charitab ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-17-1997

Reported in : AIR1997Mad287; (1997)IIMLJ191

orderar. lakshmanan, j. 1. the plaintiff who succeeded before the sub-court, tirunelveli and unsuccessful before the learned single judge of this court, is the appellant in this letters patent appeal.2. the short facts of the case are as follows : the appellant filed o,s. 130/80 on the file of the sub-court, tirunelveli under section 70 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1997 (HC)

A. Varghese and Another Vs. Chellappan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-1997

Reported in : 1998CriLJ1328

..... times and at two different places and so both could not be clubbed into one complainant. the misjoinder of persons as well as the offence under single complaint which are patent would not make the complaint valid in law. 7. the allegation against a1 to a8 is that they attacked the complainant and others at 2.50 p.m. in their .....

Tag this Judgment!


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