Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1981 Page 1 of about 29 results (0.006 seconds)

Mar 11 1981 (HC)

Sameen Banu Makrani and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-11-1981

Reported in : (1981)22GLR1084

..... with no order as to costs. rules issued on the civil applications are also discharged because the main appeals have been decided on merits and also particularly because the letters patent appeals in which these applications have been made have been preferred and allowed to be filed in representative capacity under order 1 rule 8 of the civil procedure code. there should be ..... an appeal as held in naresh's case (supra), in that view of the matter, the learned single judge dismissed both the aforesaid petitions.10. similarly all the other letters patent appeals have been preferred by those sponsored candidates who felt aggrieved by the impugned order resulting in the cancellation of their admissions to the different institutes. it should also be ..... a sequel to the impugned order the admissions granted to the candidates sponsored in the aforesaid five orders were also consequently withdrawn and cancelled. the appellants before us in letters patent appeal no. 209 of 1980 filed special civil application no. 3357 of 1980 before this court praying for appropriate writ, order and direction to quash and set aside the ..... aforesaid five orders though those two orders threatening the likely penal action for failure to comply with the directions as to admission, were withdrawn afterwards. respondent no. 3 of letters patent appeal no. 209 of 1980, therefore, moved this court for appropriate writ, order and direction to quash and set aside the aforesaid five orders of the government by her petition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1981 (HC)

Gujarat University, Ahmedabad and Etc. Vs. Sonal P. Shah

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-16-1981

Reported in : AIR1982Guj58; (1982)1GLR171

..... powers can be exercised in an appeal.34. at review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. a mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments cannot create a ground for review, (vide ..... . s. course in the government medical college, srinagar, inter alia on the ground that the allocation to the viva voce test of 30 per cent of the total marks was patently arbitrary. the supreme, court relying on the decision in ajay hasia v. khalid mujib, air 1981 sc 487 concluded that allocation of more than 15 per cent of the total ..... to correct grave and palpable errors constituted by it. in state of gujarat v. sardarbegum, air 1976 sc 1695, the supreme court observed that the high court had committed a patent error in granting relief under article 226 of the constitution, which it ought to have corrected suo motu in exercise of its inherent power. in that case the high court ..... cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be reconsidered except 'where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility' '.elaborating what an error apparent on the face of the record is, the supreme court has further laid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 1981 (HC)

Patel Prabhudas Madhavdas Vs. Bai Shivkore

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-16-1981

Reported in : AIR1982Guj9; (1982)1GLR333

..... -b) as all basic requirements have been fully established in the suo motu inquiry which the mamlatdar held pursuant to his notice dated 10-12 -1974. the tribunal was. therefore, patently in error when it refused to exercise its jurisdiction and failed to give relief to the petitioner under section 32(1-b) on the wrong assumption that. the petitioner's ..... the order 'of the mamlatdar. it can be said that the petitioner's father had voluntarily surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the respondent. once that finding is found patently erroneous in law, it would be obvious that the provisions of section 32(1b) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. as already stated above, the facts ..... possession of the tenant was taken by the landlady under t e surrender provisions of the tenancy act in the year 1969'mr. patel submitted that the aforesaid reasoning is patently erroneous in law. in that connection, mr. patel invited my attention to the order of the mamlatdar, visnagar dated 23-6-1969 being a. l. t. vashi/101 which was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1981 (HC)

Pokardas and Brothers and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-16-1981

Reported in : [1982]51STC88(Guj)

..... that case as under at page 150 :'....... prima facie it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment act. but such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1981 (HC)

Ravjibbai Bhikhabhai Patel Vs. Bilimora Nagar Palika

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-19-1981

Reported in : AIR1982Guj163; (1982)1GLR611

..... entry in the electoral rolls between the last date of filing nominations and the completion of the election which would be the date of actual polling, since it would be patent illegality and in excess of jurisdiction. the failure on the part of the election officers in complying with the different provisions of the election rules, namely, as to the notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1981 (HC)

Kalidas Karsanbhai Chavda Vs. Vadodara Jilla Panchayat Elections

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-05-1981

Reported in : AIR1981Guj195; (1981)0GLR1050

..... for the returning officer to reject the nomination paper. mr. mehta also urged that the mere non-mention of the scheduled caste to which the petitioner belongs is obviously and patently a technical error or a defect and the same is not of a substantial character, mr. mehta also urged that even after the returning officer noticed the aforesaid technical defect ..... in a case like this rejection of a nomination paper will not be in furtherance of the democratic set up established in our country at all levels but will be patently and manifestly prejudicial to the same. as indicated above either the act or the rules do not contemplate any statutory obligation on the petitioner to mention the name of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1981 (HC)

Apoorva Shantilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-09-1981

Reported in : (1982)27CTR(Guj)84; (1983)1GLR799; [1982]135ITR158(Guj)

..... hindu father can unilaterally bring about a family arrangement binding on his sons. or that such authority extends to the length of empowering him to allot a patently unequal (in the sense of being small) share to his sons. the tribunal was, therefore, justified in negativing this contention. 20. for the ..... has not produced any material on record and the tribunal has not examined the question at all. the measure adopted by the tribunal is a patently erroneous measure. it is thus obvious that the validity of this particular transaction can be judged in the context of the division which takes place ..... . it will be seen that the two transactions with which we are concerned, viz., transactions dated december 24, 1973, and december 29, 1973, are patently unequal, taken individually. even if the cumulative effect of the block of transactions were to be considered, the partition is unequal, because the mother has stated ..... and in respect of which he has to record his approval for the purpose of the relevant assessment year. admittedly this transaction brings about a patently unequal distribution in the sense that each minor has been given only 2 per cent. of the property instead of being given 33.35 per ..... on him. in exercising his statutory duty he can certainly take stock of the situation and refuse to recognise the partial partition where it is patently unequal and contrary to law. in other words, when it is a transaction which ordinarily a court of law would not recognise having regard to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 15 1981 (HC)

Rajnikant Jeshingbhai Shath and ors. Vs. Rameshchandra Kantilal Bhatt ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-15-1981

Reported in : AIR1982Guj85; (1982)1GLR71

..... correctness of the decision of the bench of the court of small causes not withstanding his objection to the maintainability of this application, he would like to point out a patent error committed by the bench in fixing the land value so far as the ground floor is concerned. according to him the tenants are in occupation of only a part .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1981 (HC)

Lallubhai Chhotabhai by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Vithalbhai Parshottambhai

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-03-1981

Reported in : AIR1982Guj222

..... a sound and disposing state of mind was proved and (6) the trial court was justified in granting the probate to the respondent.4. at the hearing of the letters patent appeal, the following submissions were made on behalf of the appellants:-(1) that the application for probate was not maintainable as the respondent was not the executor named in the ..... executed by one dahyabhai nanabhai patel. who died on october 21/22, 1967, was granted to the respondent. m. k. shah, j. dismissed the appeal and hence the present letters patent appeal.2. on jan. 29, 1970. the respondent made the application giving rise to this appeal in the court of the district judge, kaira, stating, inter aha, that the document ..... p.d. desai, j. 1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the decision rendered on august 16, 1979 in first appeal no. 514 of 1975 by m. k. shah, j. the appeal before m. k. shah, j. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1981 (HC)

Malhotra Iron and Steel Industries, Ahmedabad Vs. M.M. Gupta and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-30-1981

Reported in : 1988(33)ELT344(Guj); (1982)1GLR738

..... the summary of the findings of the courts have been confined to the issue agitated before the court. 7. at the hearing of the letters patent appeal, mr. h.b. shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, did not dispute that the end products manufactured by the plaintiff were liable to excise duty under ..... result, the appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the trail court was set aside. 6. be it noted at this stage that so far as the present letters patent appeal is concerned, the sole question which was debated before the court was the applicability or otherwise of the exemption notification no. 206/63. therefore, the narration of facts and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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