Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2002 Page 5 of about 74 results (0.033 seconds)

Apr 03 2002 (HC)

State Bank of Travancore, Udhagamandalam, Rep. by Its Manager Vs. A.R. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-2002

Reported in : (2002)2MLJ312

..... shall apply mutatis mutandis to the determination and levy of fee in respect of a memorandum of appeal, cross objection or other proceeding in second appeal or under the letters patent.5.1 section 16 of the tamil nadu court fees and suits valuation act, referred to above, makes it clear that the court fees determined on the plaint in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2002 (HC)

R. Padmanaban, Vs. Sri Vidhya Vakeesa theerthar and V.P. Vadivel Asari

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-24-2002

Reported in : (2002)3MLJ398

..... relates to non-joinder of necessary parties. hence, i am of the view that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. it is patently clear that most of the plaintiffs belong to other than mathwa community and they have not filed any record to show that they were also worshipping the temple as a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2002 (HC)

K.S. Geetha Vs. Stanleybuck and Dr. P. Sedhu Ammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-12-2002

Reported in : (2002)2MLJ823

..... into several parts and the plaint cannot be partially rejected and only in these circumstances the court ruled that when the court passed an order without jurisdiction and which is patently illegal, there is nothing wrong in invoking supervisory power of the court under section 115 of code of civil procedure and rectify the illegality committed by it. hence this ruling .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2002 (HC)

Villupuram Municipality, Rep. by Its Commissioner, Villupuram Vs. M. S ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-11-2002

Reported in : (2002)3MLJ375

..... be complied with. if the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is to be accepted then the conditions imposed for the sanction of the lay out can be patently violated after the lapse of the validity period of sanction. it that be so, then the conditions imposed for sanction of lay out would become mockery as the land owner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2002 (HC)

Kumari Anandan Vs. Dr. T. Balamukunda Rao (Died) and 3 ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-30-2002

Reported in : AIR2002Mad472; (2002)2MLJ626

..... the case of the plaintiff. it is well settled that in a suit for specific performance the evidence and proof of the agreement must be clear and certain which is patently missing in this case. the trial court has rightly held that the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff is not true even though the terms of the contract were not vague .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2002 (HC)

Radha Rukmini Ammal Vs. Swaminatha Mudaliar Sons Co., Represented by I ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-08-2002

Reported in : II(2004)BC478; [2002]112CompCas383(Mad); (2002)3MLJ436

..... was not pleaded. learned counsel relied on the case of m/s. u. ponnappa moothan sons, palghat vs . catholic syrian bank ltd. reported in to show that unless there is patent gross negligence on the part of the holder in due course, his claim cannot be negatived.4. learned counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand submitted that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2002 (HC)

Jayaraman and Appar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Se ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-06-2002

Reported in : AIR2003Mad29; (2002)3MLJ732

..... could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.' (emphasis ours) ..... this court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2002 (HC)

Dr. E. Johnson and Two ors. Vs. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and N ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-23-2002

Reported in : (2002)3MLJ441

..... a settlement under section 12(3) of the industrial disputes act, is not a public duty and no writ will lie against a private body. (6) if the features are patent and they establish gross violation of the mandates of law, the jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution could be exercised to quash a settlement under section 18(1) or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2002 (HC)

Nine Star Exports Rep. by Its Power of Attorney, R. Kayarohanam Vs. Co ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-27-2002

Reported in : 2003(151)ELT265(Mad); (2002)3MLJ565

..... officer is obliged to give such an option. in the present case, having regard to the facts and circumstances in which the goods were said to be imported and the patent fraud committed in importing the goods, the additional collector has found that the goods had been imported in violation of the provisions of the import (control) act, 1947. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2002 (HC)

G. Ramamoorthy Vs. the Board of Directors of Hindustan Photo Films Man ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-2002

Reported in : (2003)IILLJ241Mad

..... and while affirming the single judge judgment in subramaniam vs. state of tamil nadu reported in 1998 2 mlj 418 held thus :-'9) on the state government filing a letter patent appeal against the said order, a division bench of that high court followed its earlier judgment in dr pratap singh v. state of punjab, which had held that an order .....

Tag this Judgment!

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