Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chhattisgarh Page 1 of about 63 results (0.007 seconds)

Apr 29 2005 (HC)

V.K. Walnekar and ors. Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya GramIn Bank and a ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : AIR2006Chh92

..... any part of the existing state of madhya pradesh;a bare perusal of this provision indicates that the definition is inclusive and undoubtedly the law of letters patent shall be included in the said definition. the provisions of section 79 says about the adaptations of the 'law made'. the word 'law made' ..... & 28 of the act.26. in the light of the above discussion, the arguments advanced that by way of 'practice and procedure' the letters patent of madhya pradesh high court would be applicable to the high court of chhattisgarh cannot be accepted and same is being turned down. the words 'all ..... such jurisdiction, powers and authority under the law in force immediately before the appointed day are made exercisable by the high court of chhattisgarh, therefore letters patent jurisdiction is also vested in this high court.21. section 23 is about the 'jurisdiction' of the high court of new state, section 25 is ..... high court is not a chartered high court whether it assumes letters patent jurisdiction under the provisions of the act of 2000 or not ?20. the argument advanced is that by virtue of section 25, the law ..... newly formed state of chhattisgarh in the year 2000. admittedly, it is not a chartered high court continuing from the british period and the letters patent jurisdiction as has been vested with the chartered high court is not originally available with this high court. now the question arises that when this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2015 (HC)

Kailash Murarka Vs. K. Geet Srijan

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... , 35 lindley, mr. in 1898 found the rule "as necessary now as it was when lord coke reported heydon's case". in eastman photographic material company v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks, lr, [1898] ac 671, 576 earl of halsbury re-affirmed the rule as follows: "my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2001 (HC)

Coal Mines Officers Association of India Vs. Coal India Limited and an ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2001(4)MPHT55(CG)

..... by the order dated 28-5-2001, passed in writ petition nos. 570/2001, 571/2001, 572/2001 and 573/2001, has filed this appeal under section 10 of letters patent.2. the respondent no. 1 coal india limited is a government company and is having 8 subsidiary companies namely (1) bharat coking coal ltd., dhanbad, (2) central mining planning & design ..... .20. we expect that the authority would be honest to its orders and would not victimise mr. r. mukhopadhyaya.21. the appeal is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid.22. letters patent appeal dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 2007 (HC)

Deepak Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT14(CG)

..... in abundance is available for the proposition that an error apparent on the face of record can be corrected by certiorari. the board working rule for determining what is a patent error or an error apparent on the face of the record was well set out in satyanarayan laxminarayan hegde v. mallikarjun bhavanappa tirumale. it was held that the alleged error ..... be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or an error in a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be called a patent error. in a writ of certiorari the high court may quash the proceedings of the tribunal, authority or court but may not substitute its own findings or directions in lieu .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2008 (HC)

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Etc. Vs. Vishal Agrawal and o ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : AIR2008Chh57

..... the party in sufferance is a respondent to the us or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack.35. in babaji kondaji garad : [1984]1scr767 also it has been held that if there is conflict between the statute and the subordinate legislation, the statute prevails over subordinate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2001 (HC)

Lokesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Ispat Karmachari Co-operative Credit Society Ltd ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT49(CG)

..... come to this court. 2. i have heard the parties. 3. shri kishore bahaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the co-operative tribunal is patently illegal and bad in law because it has relied upon certain facts, circumstances and evidence which were never brought to the notice of the trial court, no application was filed ..... the orders passed by the tribunals or courts or if it appears to the high court that illegalities are floating on the surface of the record or the order is patently wrong contrary to law or is against the procedure established by law, then instead of closing its eyes, having the sword of justice in its hands the high court must .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2007 (HC)

Ram Pravesh Shrivastava Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : AIR2007Chh67; 2008(3)MPHT108

..... single judge and the single judge also passed an order of dismissal of the appeal holding the appeal abated, the order was upheld under letters patent appeal. in those facts, it was held that the order passed by single judge does not amount to decree, therefore, fixed court fees is ..... delay was made out - after holding that appeal abated, single judge also passing order dismissing appeal - such order cannot be treated as decree- letters patent appeal against such order not being against decree, fixed court-fee is payable and not ad valorem, (court-fees act (7 of 1870), section 7 ..... of the court fees act.13. in yogeshwar and ors. v. laxminarayan agrawal reported in : air1987mp190 , the court has held thus:letters patent (1865), cl. 10 - letters patent appeal - fixed or ad valorem court fees - first appeal before single judge -abatement of, on death of sole appellant -belated application by ..... in each of the rupeesfollowing suits:-(i) to alter or set asidea summary decision or or-der of any of the civilcourts not established byletters patent or anyrevenue court; (ii) toalter or cancel any entryin a register of the namesof proprietors or revenuepaying estates;(iii) to obtain a declara-tory ..... for the procedure of filing, hearing and disposal of appeal under sub-section (3) of section 2.4. (1) the chhattisgarh uchcha nyayalaya (letters patent appeals samapti) adhiniyam, 1981 (no. 29 of 1981) is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under or in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2015 (HC)

High Court Bar Association Through its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Vs. Sta ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... ishaque (air 1955 sc 233) (supra) followed by judgment in umaji (supra) and many other decisions, held that the high court was not justified in holding that the letters patent appeal would not be maintainable. in holding so, the principles reiterated herein above were applied with special reference to principles laid down in umaji (air 1986 sc 1272) (supra) mangalbhai ..... that the petition in which single judge passed order arose out of an order passed by industrial court. while repelling the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal on the ground that the order passed by the learned single judge was essentially an order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution and hence ..... vide amendment act no. 2 of 2014 notified and published in chhattisgarh rajpatra. by this amendment, the impugned explanation, referred to above, has been added. the explanation, as it patently reads, creates a legislative presumption. according to this presumption, where points raised in the petition before the division bench against the order or judgment of the single judge were adjudicated ..... jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india, to a division bench comprising of two judges of the same high court by virtue of the chhattisgarh uchcha nyayalaya (letters patent appeal samapti) adhiniyam, 1981 (no. 29 of 1981). 2. lacking of appeal to division bench causes hardship to a common litigant as well as the state government because .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 2007 (HC)

Chhattisgarh Chemical Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Director, Keystone Indust ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT86(CG)

..... gives ancillary directions which may pertain to article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226. such was the view taken by the allahabad high court in aidal singh v ..... high court (appeal to division bench) acts, 2006, the intra court appeals were being filed under the provisions of madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (letters patent appeals sampati) adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to 'adhiniyam'). the said provisions of letters patent appeals was repealed by the chhattisgarh high court (appeal to division bench) act, 2006 (no. 1 of 2007) and by the same notification .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2014 (HC)

S.K. Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Principal Secretary and ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... permissible if the court comes to the conclusion that the author of the order lacks inherent jurisdiction/competence and therefore, it comes to the conclusion that the order suffers from patent and latent invalidity. 19. thus, from the above it emerges that even if the order/notification is void/voidable, the party aggrieved by the same cannot decide that the said .....

Tag this Judgment!


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