Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1967 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.006 seconds)

Sep 01 1967 (HC)

Dawood Mahomed Pathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-01-1967

Reported in : AIR1969Guj79

..... , the appellate court hearing the appeal under the letters patent is bound to hear the appeal both on questions of law and questions of fact, which were agitated before the learned judge against whose judgment the ..... a first appeal and he was therefore competent to decide not only questions of law but also questions of fact. since clause 15 of the letters patent appeal does not lay down any limitation of any sort either as regards the subject matter of the appeal or the powers of the appellate court ..... is not correct clause 15 of the letters patent gives a right of appeal against the decision of a single judge of this court except in such cases which are expressly excepted from the operation ..... india.15. during the course of his arguments, mr. vidyarthi, learned assistant government pleader, contended that in an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent, this court cannot go into the questions of fact decided by the learned judge against whose decision the appeal is preferred. in our opinion, this contention ..... article 5 of the constitution. diwan j. accordingly dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. it is against that decision of diwan j. that this letters patent appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.3. at the hearing of this appeal before us the only point that was pressed on behalf of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1967 (HC)

Maganlal Jagjiwandas Vs. Lakhiram Haridasmal and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-10-1967

Reported in : AIR1968Guj193; (1968)GLR161

..... the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act applied as between the auction-purchaser and the lessee of the mortgagor. against this judgment and order, the present letters patent appeal has been preferred by the auction-purchaser. (2) it would be here necessary to set out the provisions of section 65a of the transfer of property act, which are ..... of 1961 and restore the order of the joint civil judge, senior division, baroda passed by him in miscellaneous application no. 344 of 1959 on 27th july 1961. this letters patent appeal is therefore, allowed with costs of this appeal as well as the costs of first appeal no. 284 of 1961 both of which shall be paid by respondent no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1967 (HC)

Dr. Chhotalal Jivabhai Patel Vs. Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-29-1967

Reported in : (1971)12GLR850

..... . there is also inherent evidence in clause 15 to show that it is not limited to judgments given in exercise of the jurisdictions expressly mentioned in the letters patent. the letters patent make no mention of revisional jurisdiction and yet the parenthetical portion in clause 15 excludes an order made by single judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction on the footing ..... no particular purpose or object white conferring power under clause 15 in limiting it qua the kinds of jurisdiction possessed by the high court as set out in the letters patent when clause 44 clearly contemplated that the existing jurisdiction was subject to the legislative power of the governor general and the jurisdiction conferred on the high court was liable ..... .13. re: ground (2): the argument under this ground was that clause 15 only contemplated judgment given in exercise of such jurisdictions as were expressly mentioned in the letters patent themselves and did not extend to judgments given in exercise of other jurisdictions subsequently conferred on the high court by legislation. but this argument is plainly unsustainable. as long ago ..... thereafter the learned judge proceeded to sign the order allowing the amendments. against the order allowing the amendments an appeal was preferred by the second respondent and that is letters patent appeal no. 2 of 1967 the petitioner and the second respondent also preferred appeals against the order rejecting the note of the petitioner and negativing the contention of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1967 (HC)

KurbanhusseIn Ibrahimji Mithiborwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, G ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-22-1967

Reported in : [1968]68ITR407(Guj)

..... under section 22, and the two notices are part of one and the same notice served upon the assessee, then also the notice is invalid because of the clear and patent contradiction between the two constituent parts of the notice. even if that view is not taken into consideration for the time being, the question is whether the revenue is entitled ..... ) that there was nothing to indicate that the assessment year mentioned in one of the two notices was the correct assessment year; and (2) that there was a clear and patent contradiction between the two constituent parts of the notice even if the notice, viz., one part under section 34 and the other under section 22 were read as a whole ..... in the notice headed under section 34 was a mistake and that that notice was in fact a notice for the assessment year 1950-51. ..... there being a clear and patent contradiction between the two constituent parts of the notice under section 34(1) (a) in regard to the assessment year to the assessment year, there would be nothing to show .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1967 (HC)

Ratilal Balabhai Nazar Vs. Ranchhodbhai Shankerbhai Patel and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-26-1967

Reported in : AIR1968Guj172; (1968)0GLR48

..... no dispute as to the standard rent and where there was such dispute, the case fell to be governed exclusively by section 12(1) and the explanation. this view was patently erroneous as it is now well settled by several decisions of this court and the supreme court that the various subsections of section 12 confer protection on a tenant at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1967 (HC)

Shantaben Thakor Vs. New Raipur Mills Co. Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-14-1967

Reported in : AIR1968Guj118; [1968(16)FLR54]; (1967)GLR1012

..... the high court which was decided by raju j. on 11th february 1963. the appeal by the employer was allowed by the learned judge against whose decision the present letters patent appeal is preferred by the original applicant. (2) as stated above the learned commissioner for workman's compensation awarded rs. 2,000 as compensation holding that the workman chandulal died ..... a.r. bakshi, j. (1) this is a letters patent appeal against the decision in first appeal no. 1079 of 1960 which was a first appeal preferred in this court against the order of the commissioner for workmen's compensation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1967 (HC)

Hiralal Hargovindas Vs. Popatlal Sankalchand Patel and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-02-1967

Reported in : AIR1969Guj28

..... appeal no. 100 of 1964 inthe high court which was dismissed summarily by divan j. on 8th october 1964. it is against that order of dismissal that the present letters patent appeal has been preferred by the appellant.2. as regards the question of ownership of the two rickshaws, the finding of the learned judge of the city civil court that ..... bakshi, j.1. this letters patent appeal arises out of proceedings for contempt taken out against the appellant for breach of an ad interim injunction granted in insolvency petition no. 24 of 1961, in these proceedings, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1967 (HC)

Joitaram Sakarchand and anr. Vs. Himatlal Hiralal and Co. and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-04-1967

Reported in : AIR1968Guj156; (1967)GLR904

..... of the charged property was well-founded. the learned judge accordingly rejected the appeal but he made no order as to costs. the fourth defendant thereupon preferred the present letters patent appeal in this court.(2) we do not agree with raju, j. that where a charge on immovable property is created for the first time by a decree for payment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 1967 (HC)

Vora Salehbahi Gulambhai and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-12-1967

Reported in : (1968)9GLR340

..... by the first appellate court recognising the right of the plaintiff to the trees in those two survey numbers was incorrect. we, therefore, dismiss letters patent appeal no. 13 of 1966 in so far as the right of the plaintiff in respect of the trees in those two survey numbers included in the ..... plea that exh. 61 is compulsorily registrable. the point whether the document exh. 61 requires compulsory registration was heard along with similar points raised in letters patent appeal no. 12 of 1966 and for the reasons given in the judgment of that appeal, we hold that exh. 61 requires registration. it being unregistered ..... with jagirdars as occupants under section 5 of the jagir abolition act.37. no other points were pressed in these appeals. we, therefore, allow letters patent appeal no. 1 of 1966 and set aside the judgment and decree of this court in second appeal no. 760 of 1960 and restore the decree ..... documents are compulsorily registrable and being unregistered, are not valid and effective enough to transfer the right to cut trees to the plaintiffs.33. as regards letters patent appeal no. 13 of 1966, the plaintiff i took a right to cut trees in 80 survey, numbers by two documents exhs. 61 and 62. by ..... contended that the documents do not require registration.7. the suit no. 36 of 1957 was filed by the plaintiff, who is the appellant in letters patent appeal no. 13 of 1966, in the court of the civil judge, senior division, baroda on facts very similar to the facts in the previous case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1967 (HC)

Desai Navinkant Kesarlal and ors. Vs. Prabhat Kabhai and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-23-1967

Reported in : (1968)9GLR694

..... 's judgment and the order, therefore, which held mat the tenants were permanent tenants, placing reliance on die said entry and consequently on the inclusive definition of permanent tenant, was patently erroneous.6. there are two more groups of 11 special civil applications nos. 428 of 1965 to 438 of 1965 and of 13 special civil applications no. 439 to 448 ..... made by the revenue authorities while the record of rights was first promulgated. the result is that the tribunal's order passed, by relying on the said entry is also patently erroneous. the tribunal took the view that the commissioner had, by a valid order, set aside the aval karkun's order dated the 28th december 1958 and, therefore, the original ..... of the entry has to be seen on the date when the amending act 13 of 1956 came into effect, i.e. on the 1st of august 1956, is also patently erroneous.32. the history of this matter with which the tribunal was concerned was peculiar and the stand taken by the commissioner as a tribunal is also rather unusual as .....

Tag this Judgment!

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