Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2002 Page 5 of about 74 results (0.027 seconds)

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!

Jun 12 2002 (HC)

Geetha Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-12-2002

Reported in : [2002]257ITR178(Mad)

..... could be given to the hotels only under sub-item (iii) and not additionally under sub-item (iv). learned senior counsel pointed out that the view of the tribunal is patently erroneous and has been so viewed by the supreme court in the decision in east india hotels ltd. v. cit : [1997]223itr1(sc) . learned counsel pointed out the following paragraph .....

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!

Nov 06 2002 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. R.G. Umaranee

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-06-2002

Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Mad)104; [2003]262ITR507(Mad)

..... referred the question that was also directed to be referred and re-framed by this court in t.c.p. no. 40 of 1995. since the order suffers from a patent mistake, which is apparent from the order of the income tax appellate tribunal, we are of the view that the following question of law should also be taken to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2002 (HC)

Pavithra, Rep. by Power Agent S. Rajkumar Kalingarayar Vs. Rahul Raj

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-29-2002

Reported in : (2003)1MLJ182

..... in courts to claim a right to send the petition in question to the family court by registered post and therefore the return of papers cannot be said to be patently illegal or unwarranted or uncalled for. in the said case, this court expressed the view that prohibition contained in section 13 of the family courts act is only vis-a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2002 (HC)

B.S. Nagarajan Vs. K.B. Sivasankaran

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-10-2002

Reported in : (2003)1MLJ426

..... proper lease deed executed in this regard and that his continuance in possession is not as a lessee, the question of implied tenancy also does not arise. 15. the letters patent appeal is therefore, dismissed. no costs. the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

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