Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.005 seconds)

Apr 06 1964 (HC)

Mehta Amritlal Gokaldas and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-06-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769

..... of section 65 makes it clear that the high court of andhra pradesh remains intact and extends its jurisdiction to the new territories. the conclusion was reached that the letters patent jurisdiction of the andhra pradesh high court extended the jurisdiction of the andhra pradesh high court to the new territories and did not preserve he law relating to the jurisdiction ..... bombay to the anything in the reorganization act which, by necessary implication, provides for any such extension. however, mr. i.m.nanavati contends that there are provisions in the letters patent themselves which would get automatically extended to the new areas which may be placed within the jurisidction of the old high court of bombay. in support of this proposition, mr ..... the law regulating the jurisdiction of the saurashtra high court is crystalized in section 52, the jurisdiction conferred on the high court of bombay by clause 15 of the letters patent is also crystallized under the reorganization act, and that the effect of this crystallization is that litigants from the saurashtra and other transferred areas will have the benefit of that ..... competent without the necessary certificates and that, thereof, all the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. that is the question which has been raised for decision this group of letters patent appeals.(4) now, inorder to understand and appreciate the rival contentions of both the sides, it is necessary to mention some of the provisions of the ordinance of 1948 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1964 (HC)

Thakrani Gulabkunverba Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-27-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Guj1

..... be enforced against the jagir. such a right of the bhayat to be maintained by the jagir was held to be certainly an incident of jagir. the tribunal was, therefore, patently wrong and it proceeded on a clear misconception of the term 'incident of jagir' in rejecting the claim of the petitioners in third group of cases also on the ground ..... , by the harmonious interpretation given by this court to section 14(2) the same result has been achieved. the order of the tribunal, therefore, in all these appeals is therefore, patently illegal and must he quashed 8. mr. sompura, however, raised a contention that such a cash allowance could not be an incident of jagir and, therefore, the appeals in question ..... the decision of the tribunal, the petitioners have filed these 11 petitions.5. the short question which mr. patel raised wits that the tribunal had committed a jurisdictional or other patent error of law in not following the law settled by the division bench of the bombay high court which was binding on it. the said unreported decision was delivered on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1964 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad Vs. Shantilal Punja ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-01-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Guj106

..... . and that the principle laid down by the supreme court in suraj mall mohta & co. v. a. v. visvanatha sastri : [1954]26itr1(sc) applied. he held that the second proviso patently introduced an unequal treatment in respect of some out of the same class of persons. those whose liability to pay tax was discovered by one method could be proceeded against ..... to sub-section (3) of section 34 being ultra vires of article 14 had been raised before the learned trial judge against whose decision the division bench heard a letters patent appeal. they have also pointed out that the learned trial judge upheld that objection and held that the second proviso infringed article 14. at page 176 of the report, they ..... that decision was binding upon the court. we may, with respect, point out that it would not be strictly correct to say that the division bench which heard the letters patent appeal in vasantsen's case : [1956]29itr857(bom) had not considered the question of the validity of proviso (2) to section 34(5). in fact, the division bench expressly held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1964 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Punjabhai

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-01-1964

Reported in : [1965]57ITR58(Guj)

..... that decision was binding upon the court. we may, with respect, point out that it would not be strictly correct to say that the division bench which heard the letters patent appeal in vasantsen's case had not considered the question of the validity of proviso (2) of section 34(3). in fact, the division bench expressly held, as already pointed ..... a different point, not the constitutional point, being ultra vires of article 14 had been raised before the learned trial judge against whose decision the division bench heard a letters patent appeal. they have also pointed out that the learned trial judge upheld that objection and held that the second proviso infringed article 14. at page 175 of the report, they ..... provision of law, and that the principle laid down by the supreme court in suraj mall mohta & co. v. a. v. visvanatha sastri, applied. he held that the second proviso patently introduced an unequal treatment in respect of some out of the same class of persons. those whose liability to pay tax was discovered by one method could be proceeded against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1964 (HC)

Girdharlal Laljibhai Vs. Nagrashna M.N. and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-08-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Guj231; [1964(8)FLR415]; (1964)0GLR413

..... that the view of the learned judge was a perverse one or such as no reasonable man could take. the order of the learned judge does not therefore, disclose any patent error of law and he has not failed to exercise hie jurisdiction, and no interference with his order is justified at our hands. the petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1964 (HC)

Kadi Municipality Vs. New Chhotalal Mills Company Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-27-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Guj293

..... with the learned judge that the suit was maintainable against the municipality. (17) in this view of the matter we dismiss all the three letters of patent and confirm the decrees passed by he learned judge in all the three cases with this modification that the declaration and injunction granted under the decrees will be ..... taken even before the learned assistant judge or the learned trial judge. he pointed out the limits of our jurisdiction hearing a letters patent appeal and relied on three decisions of the high court of bombay, namely, shripad v. shivram, 36 bom l r 1052: (air 1934 bom 466), ..... b.g.thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the company. he submitted that this contention could not be allowed to be raised in these letters patent appeals since it had not been taken before the learned judge who heard the second appeals and for the matter of that it had not been ..... and took the view that the suit for refund was maintainable against the municipality, and in this view of the matter, he declared the suit. letters patent appeal no.10 of 1961 is directed against that decree passed by the learned judge.(4) it will be seen from the aforesaid statement of facts that ..... ,being the amount claimed by the municipality and paid by the company under protest, for the period of 3rd december 1952 to 30th december 1952. letters patent appeal no. 10 of 1961, arose out of a third suit filed by the company against the municipality on 4th february 1954 and in the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1964 (HC)

Mohanlal Ganpatram Vs. Shri Sayaji Jubilee Cotton and Jute Mills Co. L ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-18-1964

Reported in : (1964)0GLR804

..... business and the bad financial position f the company, messrs. prahladji sevakram and company limited could extract annual sums of rs. 25,000 from the company. but this argument was patently misconceived. it completely overlooked the circumstances in which the agreement dated 10th january, 1958, was made between the company and messrs. prahladji sevakram and company limited. the companies act, 1956 ..... , on any such ground, i do not think there is any substance in the challenge. so far as the argument based on the point of quorum is concerned, it is patently unsustainable since on 8th december, 1957, there were only six directors of the company and under section 287 of the companies act, 1956, one-third of the total strength, namely ..... relieving shah manilal mulchand of its obligations under the adat agreement and enabling the directors and their relatives to take out their moneys from the company. but this allegation was patently unsustainable. the resolution accepting the termination of the adat agreement was passed by the board of directors on 8th december, 1957, in response to a letter dated 1st december, 1957 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1964 (HC)

Rajkunvarba Wd/O. Jadeja Pratapsinhji Khanji Vs. Randhirsinhji Kalyans ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-06-1964

Reported in : (1964)5GLR907

..... considered the effect of section 52 and other relevant sections of the reorganisation act of 1956 having a bearing on the construction of section 52 in a group of letters patent appeals from saurashtra the judgment in which has been delivered just before the commencement of this judgment. amritlal gokaldas mehta v. state of bombay 1964 v.g.l.r. 769 ..... high court. that appeal was dismissed on 27th august 1958. prom that appellate decree plaintiff preferred an appeal to the same high court of bombay which was numbered as letters patent appeal no. 28 of 1959. that appeal was admitted by a division bench of that high court on the 27th of april 1959 whilst this appeal was pending on the ..... and a new high court of gujarat was created. under the provisions of the same bombay reorganisation act the letters patent appeal no. 28 of 1959 was transferred to this court for disposal according to law it was numbered as letters patent appeal no. 14 of 1960 when if was transferred to this court. mr. mankad as already stated contends that no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1964 (HC)

Patel Kanchanbhai Mangalbhai and anr. Vs. Maneklal Maganlal Gandhi and ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-24-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Guj19; (1965)GLR200

..... returning officer was final and the rejection of the ballot paper by the returning officer could not be questioned before the civil judge under section 24. but the argument is patently wrong and there are several reasons which compel us to reject it. rule 63 provides for the preservation of the ballot papers until the expiry of fifteen days from the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1964 (HC)

Hariprasad Raghuram Dave Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-28-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Guj283; 1965CriLJ743

..... as well as the appellate and revising authorities, is perverse. these are questions of fact and under our jurisdiction under art. 226, they do not fall within our inquiry unless patently it can be made out that there is total want of evidence or there is such want of evidence that the inference reached could not have been reached by any .....

Tag this Judgment!


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