Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1978 Page 1 of about 14 results (0.005 seconds)

Feb 06 1978 (HC)

Gariadhar Gram Panchayat Vs. Nanubhai S. Desai and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-06-1978

Reported in : AIR1978Guj96

..... opinion, he exercised the revisional jurisdiction when he examined those decisions. since he exercised revisional jurisdiction in relation to them appeal against his order under cl.15 of the letters patent is barred.15. therefore, this appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. since we have held that ..... exercise of original jurisdiction under art. 226 which distinguished the revisional. proceedings under art. 227 of the constitution. we do not find any reference to clause 15 of the letters patent having been made in that decision. since it was conceded by the learned advocate who raised the preliminary objection that the taluka development officer who exercised. jurisdiction under s. 44 ..... , quashed the order of the taluka development officer and declared the petitioner in that petition duly elected as sarpanch of sankhari gram panchayat. that order was challenged in the letters patent appeal. in, that appeal it was contended that the appeal was not maintainable. this court took the view that the appeal was maintainable. while doing so, it proceeded on ..... constitution.10. it is, therefore, clear that if learned single judge of the high court exercises revisional jurisdiction, no appeal against his decision under cl 15 of the letters patent is competent. it is also clear that under article 227, the high court exercises revisional jurisdiction, the madras high court in the latter-mentioned judgment has described article 226 as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 1978 (HC)

Patel Kashiram Lavjibhai Vs. Narottamdas Bechardas and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-19-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Guj1; (1978)GLR1047

..... the high court is subject to the ordinary incidents of the procedure of the high court viz., appealability under clause 15 of the letters patent.19. under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to us as follows 'an appeal lies against a decision of a single judge ..... according to the corpus juris secundum, supervisory power is akin to the power of superintendence. he further contended that when clause 15 of the letters patent was drafted and amended in 1919, the words 'revisional jurisdiction' used therein was confined to civil cases exclusively as distinguished from the cases arising ..... argument which mr. h. m. mehta, learned advocate appearing for an intervener urged before us. he contended that clause 15 of the letters patent is only confined to classical civil cases and does not refer to constitutional jurisdiction of this high court. he contended that constitutional jurisdiction is ..... or quash it. the revisional jurisdiction of the high court within the meaning of that expression as used in clause 15 of the letters patent embraces within its sweep all judicial orders made by courts, tribunals and other authorities howsoever they might have been described. such a function may ..... ) and shankar v. krishnaji : [1970]1scr322 ; and it was also felt that it was unfortunate that the attention of the learned judges who decided letters patent appeal no. 303 of 1977 : (reported in : air1978guj96 was not drawn to these two decisions of the supreme court in state of uttar pradesh v. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1978 (HC)

The State of Gujarat Vs. Natwarlal Pitamberdas Shah

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-22-1978

Reported in : 1978CriLJ1518; (1978)GLR1095

..... invalid is bad in law, we do not consider proper to leave this question open or undecided. if the view taken by the learned judge, which in our opinion is patently wrong, is allowed to stand, many proceedings initiated by a food inspector whose appointment is defective or invalid are likely to be held to be bad in law. therefore, in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 1978 (HC)

Nathubhai Rambhai Vs. Bhaidas Ranchhoddas (Since Deed, by His Heirs) S ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-13-1978

Reported in : (1979)1GLR406

..... section 32 in the case of a landlord who is physically handicapped stands statutorily postponed, and as the statutory sale ordinarily takes effect from 1-4-57 which is a patent fact it must be assumed that when the tribunal proceeded to drop the proceedings it did so on the necessarily implied finding that the landlord was handicapped on the tiller ..... tribunal had proceeded on the gross misconception of law, as was evident and unchallengable in the bombay case. ordinarily, it is to be assumed that legal factual position was all patent to the parties when the second order came to be passed in the year 1971, and that both the tenants and the landlord on one hand and the tribunal on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1978 (HC)

Khalid Ibrahim Beg and anr. Vs. State Bank of India

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-29-1978

Reported in : (1979)1GLR525

..... in the court. it is the first proviso which really causes some anxiety, whether it has got any bearing on the main enactment contained in sub-rule (5). it is patent on the face of the proviso that it is coached in double negative. the said proviso prescribes that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the court is satisfied ..... where there is a substantial or a good defence the court must grant, as a matter of course, leave to defend the suit. in a case where the defence is patently frivolous or vexatious and the court is satisfied about it, it would refuse to grant leave. the role of the court becomes difficult only in those cases where there is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1978 (HC)

N.K. Dholakia and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-20-1978

Reported in : (1979)1GLR666

..... c.i and palekar j., has observed in paragraph 22 at page 8:an argument which found favour with mufti babauddin j., one of the learned judges of the letters patent bench of the high court, and which was repeated before us is that the 'retrospective' application of impugned rules is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. it ..... same statement of law is to be found in the judgment of the division bench of this court consisting of a.d. desai and t.u. mehta, jj. in letters patent appeal no. 69 of 1973 decided on september 25, 1974. there, t.u. mehta j. speaking for the division bench, has observed in paragraph 19 of the judgment:.if, in ..... the basis of their length of their length of service in the joint cadre of clerks and typists, for all departments of the secretariat as a whole. this clause is patently violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution because the seniority of the promotees assistants in directed to be fixed on the basis of the length of service in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1978 (HC)

State of Gujarat Vs. Thakor Dolatsinh Jivansinh

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-24-1978

Reported in : (1979)1GLR346

..... taluqdar, whether used for public purposes or possessed by a taluqdar. for the aforesaid reasons decrees passed by the learned single judge in second appeals out of which these letters patent appeals arise are set aside and the decrees of the lower appellate court (district court) therein are restored. in view of the divergent decisions of the courts about the interpretation ..... of maharashtra 67 b.l.r. 291, wherein the court construed similar provisions of the bombay personal inams abolition act, 1953. against this decision of the single judge these letters patent appeals are held and they came for hearing before the bench consisting of d.p. desai j. and myself and in view of conflict of decisions the letters ..... patent appeals have been referred to the full bench.3. sections 5 and 6 of the act read as under:5. (1): subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)-(a) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1978 (HC)

State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. the Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-20-1978

Reported in : (1979)1GLR732

a.m. ahmadi, j.1. these two letters patent appeals, one by the state of gujarat and the other by the gandhidham municipality, are directed against the judgment of our learned brother s.h. sheth, j. in a writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1978 (HC)

JamludIn G. Painter Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-17-1978

Reported in : (1979)1GLR567

..... the trial court as well as in the high court before the learned single judge. therefore, there is nothing by way of relief which he can claim in a letters patent appeal on the ground that it is denied to him. therefore, though what the respondent has filed is styled by him as 'cross-objections', in reality he has filed a ..... letters patent appeal. this statement has been styled by the plaintiff-respondent as 'cross-objections.' in my opinion, they are not cross-objections properly so-called. cross-objections are filed or are ..... class. even though this finding was recorded by the high court, the decree in its entirety passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent was confirmed on merits. in the letters patent appeal which the defendant-corporation (appellant) has filed the plaintiff respondent wants to challenge this finding. he has filed a statement stating the finding which he is challenging in the ..... august 1977 the appeal was dismissed by the learned single judge. the appellate decree passed by the learned single judge is challenged by the corporation in a letters patent appeal. in this letters patent appeal, the plaintiff has filed the 'cross-objections.'2. a question arose whether the court-fee was payable on the 'cross-objections' filed by the plaintiff. the taxing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1978 (HC)

Ramji Mandir Narsinhji and ors. Vs. Narsinh Nagar Co-operative Housing ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-01-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Guj134; (1979)0GLR801

..... bagot pneumatic tyre company v. clipper pneumatic tyre company. (1901) 1 cil d. 196. in that case, the plaintiff company agreed to grant phelps an exclusive licence to use a patent in consideration of an annual payment to be made to the plaintiff-company by a company which was in the course of formation by phelps. the licence was granted to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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