Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1971 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.004 seconds)

Oct 26 1971 (HC)

Hiragar Dayager and anr. Vs. Ratanlal Chunilala and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-26-1971

Reported in : AIR1973Guj15

..... u. shah that the case was a fit one for appeal. since the present letter patent appeal was filed the appellant without obtaining such certificate from mr. justice m. u. shah, it must be held to be to not maintainable an ..... justice m. u. shah was consequently an order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subordinate to the high court and no letter patent appeal against the decision of mr. justicts m. u. shah could be filed by the appellants without obtaining a certificate from mr. justice m. ..... inferior tribunal, it would constitute part to the appellate jurisdiction of the distinct court. the words 'appellate jurisdiction' in clause 15 of the letter patent refer to appellate jurisdiction of the whatever kind which may be vested in the district court whether it is conferred under section 8 of the bombay ..... original jurisdiction or special jurisdiction but it would not be appellate jurisdiction. the attempt of the appeal late jurisdiction in clause 15 of the letter patent to the appellate jurisdiction contemplated in section 8 of the bombay civil courts act,. 1869. this attempt is futle and cannot be countenances. section ..... be said to be an order made it the exercise of 'appellate jurisdiction'. if it was made in the exercise of appellant jurisdiction'. the letter patent appeal would not be maintainable, since certificate of mr., justice m. u. shahs as to fitness was not obtained by the appellants but if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1971 (HC)

indulal Kanaiyalal Yagnik Vs. Prasannadas D. Patwari and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-10-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Guj92; (1972)GLR269

..... this contention and decided the preliminary issue by holding that, despite the consent decree, the suit was maintainable. the defendant thereupon preferred a letters patent appeal before a division bench of the high court. the question arose whether the appeal was maintainable under c1. 15 and that required the division ..... may, therefore, be stated to be that a decision in order to be a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent must be a decision which, whether it be final or preliminary or interlocutory, affects the merits of the question in controversy between the parties in ..... this court only under clause 15 of the letters patent and, therefore in order to determine the maintainability of the appeal, it is necessary to inquire whether the decision of mr. justice divan could be ..... first and second respondents urged that the decision of mr. justice divan did not constitute 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent and no appeal was, therefore, maintainable against it. now an appeal could lie against the decision of mr. justice divan to a division bench of ..... , he answered issue no.2 in the negative. the appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal in this court under clause 15 of the letters patent.2. when the appeal reached hearing before us, a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the first and second respondents against the maintainability of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1971 (HC)

Wadhvan City Municipality at Wadhavan City, Surendrangar Vs. the Zalaw ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-04-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Guj50

..... upon the decision of the supreme court in amalgamated electricity co. v. n.s.bathena. : [1964]7scr503 ; and thereafter he also granted the certificate under c1.15 of the letters patent and on such certificate the present appeal has now come before us.2. the indian electricity act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the electricity act) was enacted to amend the ..... divan, j.1. this appeal has come before us under a certificate granted by a.d. desai, j. under c1. 15 of the letters patent in respect of a decision given by his in second appeal no.184 of 1962. this appeal raises an interesting question about the interpretation of s. 57 of the electricity ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1971 (HC)

Star Trading Corporation Vs. Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Company Ltd. (In ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-26-1971

Reported in : [1971]41CompCas1023(Guj); (1972)GLR200

..... application was apparently impressed by the contention raised on behalf of the first respondent and he accordingly rejected the application. hence, the present appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent by the appellant. 3. the principal question which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the arbitration agreement between the parties could be said to be excluded by section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1971 (HC)

Mali Kodarbhai Motibhai Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-11-1971

Reported in : (1971)12GLR328

..... said appeal has been decided by our learned brother n.k. vakil, j. by his judgment dated october 30, 1965, and it is against the said judgment that this letters patent appeal is directed.3. mr. g.p. vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, who was plaintiff in the suit, has contended before us that the giving of ..... m.u. shah, j.1. this is a letters patent appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent against the judgment dated october 30, 1965 delivered by a single judge of this high court in second appeal no. 1149 of 1960, dismissing the appeal. it involves a substantial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1971 (HC)

Chhotubhai Babarbhai Patel and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-12-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Guj153

..... be served by granting leave to appeal under the letters patent. leave is, therefore, rejected. at the oral request of mr. bhatt, interim injunction granted by this is continued for a period of one month from today in order to enable ..... this stage, mr. k.h. bhatt, learned advocate for the appellants orally sought leave to file an appeal under the letters patent. in my opinion, it is not necessary to grant any leave to file an appeal under the letters patent. the points canvassed before me were already decided earlier in the writ petitions. in my opinion, therefore, no useful purpose will .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1971 (HC)

D. Mayavanshi Vs. K.S. Pawri and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-02-1971

Reported in : 1971CriLJ1391; (1971)GLR804

..... judge is as to which court the appeals against appealable decrees of the single judge ordinarily lie. such appeals lie to the high court under clause 10 of the letters patent of the allahabad high court, and therefore, this appeal lies to the high court.on the facts before the supreme court, the supreme court returned the criminal appeal to the ..... not necessary for us to express an opinion on the question whether the order of the learned single judge under section 476 is appealable under clause 10 of the letters patent or not. a right of appeal against that order is given by the provisions of section 476-b. the forum of appeal is also determined by the provisions of section ..... civil court is situate. the decrees of a single judge of the high court exercising civil jurisdiction are ordinarily appealable to the high court under clause 10 of the letters patent of the allahabad high court read with clause 13 of the united provinces high court (amalgamation) order, 1948, it is true that the decision of a single judge of the ..... behalf of the state, respondent no. 2 that this appeal itself was not tenable. mr. chhaya urged that this was a criminal matter and that clause 15 of the letters patent would not be applicable in the instant case. he also expressed a doubt whether a single judge of this court can be considered to be subordinate to the division bench .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1971 (HC)

Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. S.A. Jais and Co. and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-28-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Guj192

..... extra leads beyond 10' by applying some principle or rule analogous to estoppel. the conclusion of the arbitrator in these circumstances could not be held to be vitiated by any patent error by misra, j. both these decisions which are relied upon by mr. kaji in this context can hardly help him, when the claim in the present case is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 1971 (HC)

Pandya Vinodrai Ramrai Vs. Lavar Prabhudas Nathuram and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-16-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Guj204

..... suit for possession has expired even in case of person who had claimed only a limited right.'9. the decision of division bench of our own high court in letters patent appeal no.28 of 1966 also affirms this position of law. in that case a suit was field in the court of civil judge (j.d.) at mandvi for redemption ..... air 1960 raj 1 (sb) and on the decision of the division bench of this high court consisting of s. h. sheth. j., and d. p. desai. j., in letters patent appeal no. 88 of 1966 decided on 22.6.1970 (guj) mr. jani also relied on the decision of supreme court in air 1951 sc 469 and air 1961 sc ..... summarily dismissed the same. the matter was then taken by way of second appeal to this court and the said appeal was also dismissed. a letters patent appeal under clause (15) of the letters patent on the strength of certificate granted by the single judge of this court came for hearing before the division bench. a number of contentions were raised but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1971 (HC)

Khimji Jiva and ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Maganlal Shah and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-25-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Guj280; (1972)0GLR23

..... have no jurisdiction and the suit must be filed in the bombay high court on its original side by virtue of the residuary jurisdiction under clause 12 of the letters patent.'the learned judge having approved the principle laid down by the full bench of the allahabad high court in paras ram's case, air 1961 all 395 (fb) *supra) has ..... applied it to that case. he has also considered clause 12 of the letters patent of the high court of bombay and held that the residuary jurisdiction vests in the high court on its original side.16. the consideration of all the aforesaid decisions to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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