Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1961 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.031 seconds)

Jun 23 1961 (HC)

Juvan Sinhji Balusinhji and ors. Vs. Balbhadrasinhji Indrasinhji and o ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-23-1961

Reported in : AIR1963Guj209; (1962)3GLR715

..... to the true intent of the makers of the act, 'pro bono publico' '. this rule was reaffirmed by earl of halsbury in eastman photographic material co. v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks, (1898) ac 571 in the following words:-'my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1961 (HC)

Juvansinhji Balusinhji and ors. Vs. Balbhadrasinhji Indrasinhji and or ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-23-1961

Reported in : [1962]32CompCas1162(Guj); (1962)GLR715

..... intent of the makers of the act, pro bono publico.' 6. this rule was reaffirmed by the earl of halsbury in eastman photographic materials co. ltd. v. comptroller-general of patents, designs and trade-marks ([1898] a.c. 571.) in the following words : 'my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute now in question, it is not only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1961 (HC)

Juvansinhji Balusinhji and ors. Vs. Bhalbhadrasinhji Indrasinhji and o ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-23-1961

Reported in : (1962)0GLR715

..... true intent of the makers of the act , pro boon publics.' this rule was reaffirmed by the earl of halsbury in eastman photographic materials co. ltd. v. comptroller-general of patents, designs and trade-marks in. he following words: 'my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute now in question , it is not only legitimate but highly convenient .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1961 (HC)

Mohanlal Dhanjibhai Mehta Vs. Chunilal B. Mehta and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-05-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Guj269; [1962]32CompCas970(Guj); (1962)0GLR165

..... in one case and a particular patent in the other and since the subject-matter never came into existence or ceased to exist, the substratum of the company was deemed to have failed. in re, red rock ..... co., (1882) 20 ch d 169, where it was found on a true construction of the memorandum of association, that the main object of the company was to exploit german patent of making coffee from dates and the patent was never obtained. it was held that the company was formed with the primary object of acquiring and working the particular ..... patent and all the remaining objects were ancillary to this object and consequently the substratum had failed. the subject-matter which the company was formed to exploit was a particular mine .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1961 (HC)

Lalu Jela and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-24-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Guj250

..... difference of opinion between two judges of a division court, vide section 36 of the bombay high court charter, which corresponds to section 27 of the allahabad high court letters patent. in the allahabad case the members of a division court differed on a question of law arising in a case, and they requested the hon'ble the chief justice to ..... determination of the question of law and also for the disposal of the case. that was a case which clearly fell within the scope of section 27 of the letters patent of the allahabad high court, which corresponds to section 36 of the charter of the bombay high court, 12. reliance is also placed on 2 english cases, namely (1) young .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1961 (HC)

Vora Fidaali BadruddIn Mithibarwala Vs. the State of Bombay (Now Gujar ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-24-1961

Reported in : AIR1961Guj151; (1961)2GLR343

..... 1950, we would not have ordinarily thought it necessary to deal with the present argument urged by mr. rajni patel. but the argument lies in a narrow compass and is patently incorrect and we might as well dispose of the same. the argument is based upon a confusion between the exercise of extra-provincial jurisdiction under section 3 and the making .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1961 (HC)

State of Gujarat Vs. Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-31-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Guj128; (1962)0GLR269

..... exercised by this high court. the high court of bombay immediately prior to the appointed day exercised ordinary original civil jurisdiction under clauses 11 and 12 of the letters patent whereas such jurisdiction is not possessed by this high court. can it be said under these circumstances that the jurisdiction exercised by this high court is the same as ..... that the jurisdiction which the composite high court exercised is not the same as the jurisdiction conferred upon the high court of gujarat by the act. according to the letters patent, the composite high court of bombay exercises ordinary original jurisdiction over greater bombay. the original side of tfiat high court also exercises jurisdiction over persons residing in the territory ..... two courts were situate in different states and that. the bombay high court exercised jurisdiction; over larger territories and exercised jurisdiction/ under clauses 11 and 12 of the letters patent which the gujarat high court does not exercise. it is urged that where two courts are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction there must be reciprocity. and each court must consider ..... same territories. the bombay high court has however exercised jurisdiction over other areas. it has also exercised ordinary original civil jurisdiction under clauses 11 and 12 of the letters patent. the gujarat high court does not exercise similar jurisdiction in respect of any territory.18. it is urged that the continued simultaneous existence of both the courts constitute a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1961 (HC)

Lavjibhai Naranbhai Vs. Ramjibhai Hetabhai and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-02-1961

Reported in : (1962)3GLR56

..... jurisdiction is undoubtedly a patent one.in : [1960]3scr764 a. st. arunachalam pillai v. southern roadways ltd. their lordships of the supreme court held that the high court in a writ petition rightly allowed the ..... even though he may have acquiesced in the want of jurisdiction. but the want of jurisdiction must be a patent one. where even on a cursory perusal of section 34 and its provisos it is clear that the income-tax officer has exceeded his competence and authority the want of ..... , the petitioner when he decided on 29-3-1961 to reform the wards.8. in : air1956bom530 s.c. prashar and anr. v. vasantsen dwarkadas and ors. their lordships observed:a patent want of jurisdiction entitles the petitioner to obtain immediate relief from the high court even though he could raise the plea of want of jurisdiction in a higher tribunal and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1961 (HC)

T.P. Kumaran Vs. R. Kothandaraman, Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-07-1961

Reported in : AIR1963Guj6; (1962)GLR856; (1963)ILLJ648Guj

..... been observed that there may conceivably be cases where the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision. if an inferior court ..... or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly misconducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure and ..... proceeding does not make the order of the authority of the first instance a nullity. the defect must be concerning either want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or a patent violation of the principles of natural justice, such as want of notice or inquiry. it is such a defect which would render an order null and void and which would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1961 (HC)

Ramchand Nihalchand Advani Vs. Anandlal Bapalal Kothari and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-11-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Guj21; (1961)GLR635; (1961)0GLR165

..... general clauses act does not apply to rules framed by the bombay high court under the rule making powers under article 225 of the constitution or article 37 of letters patent or sections 122 and 129 of civil procedure code. it would, therefore, appear that for every main relief sought in the matter of writ application, there must be a separate application. the ..... special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law for the time being in force.' by article 37 of the letters patent the high court has got power to frame rules relating to the civil procedure in all proceedings in civil cases which may be brought before the high court. a proviso ..... provides as follows:--'notwithstanding anything in this code, any high court for a part a state or a part b state may make such rules not inconsistent with the letters patent or order or other law establishing it to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing herein contained shall ..... , under rule 15 of the high court charter it can be invested with such a jurisdiction by tile state legislature as provided in articles 11 and 13 of the letters patent. article 226 of the constitution has invested high courts with original civil jurisdiction in the matter of writs. assuming that when deciding writ petitions high courts are courts of civil .....

Tag this Judgment!


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