Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.005 seconds)

Feb 19 1982 (HC)

Anup Engineering Ltd. Vs. the Controller of Patents Office, New Delhi ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-19-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Guj250; (1982)2GLR14

..... in a proper proceeding, particularly when he expressed in clear and categorical terms to respondent no. 1 that he desired to eppose the grant of any patent to respondent no, 3 in regard to the aforesaid machinery.19. mr. shelat, the learned advocate could not satisfy us as to how the aforesaid ..... the petitioner-company.16. in the case before us, we are convinced beyond any doubt that on a plain reading of s. 25 of the patents act, 1970, a citizen is having a statutory legal right of lodging his objections and/or opposition within a period of four months from the date ..... to lodge its objections and opposition before the statutory office was very much subsisting within a period of 4 months as provided in s. 25 of the patents act, 1970, and to ventilate its grievance, the petitioner-company took out two proceedings, viz. (1) the petitioner-company filed the aforesaid first appeal in ..... and which also contained the application of the petitioner dt. feb. 15, 1980.11. on mar. 7, 1980, respondent no. 1, the controller of patents intirriated to the petitioner-company that the application of the petitioner-company cannot be entertained.12. it was under these circumstances that the petitioner-company had a genuine ..... on these f acts, there was no dispute before us as can be significantly noticed even from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the deputy controller of patents and designs on behalf of respondent no. 1.8. it appears, that the said application was not received by respondent no. x by feb. 20, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1982 (HC)

Parikh Amratlal Ramanlal and ors. Vs. Rami Mafatlal Girdharlal and ors ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-05-1982

Reported in : (1982)2GLR337

..... the tribunal.11. the result of the aforesaid discussion is that the order passed by the learned member of the tribunal is found to have suffered from patent errors of law and is required to be quashed and set aside. the decision of the tribunal at annexure a to the petition will have therefore, to ..... of the indian evidence act and it is because of the said omission on his part that he has come to his conclusion which suffers from a patent error of law. merely because in a given case it can be determined that power of attorney holder has no personal knowledge regarding the events or the ..... of the indian evidence act and it is because of the said omission on his part that he has come to his conclusion which suffers from a patent error of law. merely because in a given case it can be determined that power of attorney holder has no personal knowledge regarding the events or the ..... act, in view of section 97(1) of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976. it was contended that the aforesaid reasoning of the tribunal is patently erroneous.5. the contentions raised by mr. s.r. shah, learned advocate for the petitioner are well sustained. the learned member of the tribunal has based his ..... to be given opportunity to lead evidence by examining himself.4. in the present petition it has been contended before me that the tribunal has committed a patent error of law in taking the view that a general power of attorney holder of a party was not a competent witness who could depose on oath before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1982 (HC)

Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-08-1982

Reported in : (1983)35CTR(Guj)372; [1983]142ITR787(Guj)

..... which interest is payable shall stand reduced and the excess interest, if paid, shall be refunded. it is not' open to an assessee to say that there were objections or patent errors in the assessment order and, therefore, he was not bound in law to pay as per the notice of demand and was entitled to wait till the order was ..... revision application was partly allowed.2. at the hearing of this petition, mr. j. p. shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the assessment order was writ with patent errors and, therefore, the assessee returned the demand notice to the ito to enable him to rectify the errors and make a fresh demand. he pointed out that the petitioner ..... assessee as per the demand notice but instead the demand notice was returned pointing out certain patent errors committed by the ito. it appears that thereafter, the ito rectified the assessment order by virtue of section 154 of the i.t. act. as per the said rectification ..... ,414 was served on the assessee. the assessee, instead of paying the amount mentioned in the demand notice, addressed a letter dated 15th october, 1979, annex. c, pointing out various patent mistakes committed by the ito. the assessee returned the demand notice to the ito along with his request for rectification. in other words, the tax was not paid by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1982 (HC)

Jhala Mansangji Kalyansangji and ors. Vs. Mahobatsang Madarsang Jhala ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-07-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Guj75; (1982)2GLR171

..... advocates of the respective parties, i have come to the conclusion that the order passed by the debt settlement officer and as confirmed by the appellate authority suffers from a patent error of law and involves failure of the principles of natural justice and consequently both these orders are required to be quashed only on this limited ground without expressing any ..... filed his affidavit-in-reply. 7. mr. d. d. vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted before me that the order of the debt settlement officer suffers from two patent illegalities viz., even though the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 were interested in the mortgage security, they were not joined as parties before the trial authority nor were they given .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 1982 (HC)

J.D. Pathak Vs. V.B. Barot and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-16-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Guj317; (1982)2GLR633

..... petition.3. the petitioner contends that the written instructions of the first respondent at annexure '13' as well as the impugned order of the third respondent at annexure , v involve patent errors of law and jurisdiction and they are totally ultra virus the relevant provisions of the registration act as well as the land coning act this petition having been admitted ..... the registration act.10. as a result of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that on a misconception of law, the respondents failed to exercise jurisdiction and they were patently in error, when they took the view that the sale deed executed by the petitioner could not have been accepted for registration and was required to be returned to him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1982 (HC)

Laxmiben Wife of Magan Parshottam Vs. Magjibha Bijiyabhai and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-07-1982

Reported in : (1982)2GLR724

..... 114, 1. p. code are clearly mentioned therein. consequently the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is clearly contrary to the provisions of section 20 (1) proviso and is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. on this short ground, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. the learned magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1982 (HC)

The Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Lotus Hotels Pv ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-25-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Guj198; (1982)2GLR49

a.m. ahmadi, j. 1. this appeal, under clause 15 of the letters patent is directed against the judgment and order of n. h. bhatt, j., in special civil application no. 1399 of 1979 whereby he directed the appellant-corporation to 'disburse to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1982 (HC)

Navuba Gokaiji Chavda and ors. Vs. Returning Officer and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-23-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Guj281; (1982)2GLR397

..... to rectify the error and as that opportunity was not given to petitioner no. i by respondent no. i herein, his order rejecting the nomination form is patently erroneous in law. so far as the first contention of mr. mehta is concerned, mr. mankad, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 raises a serious controversy ..... in the way of exercise of constitutional powers when the decision of the returning officer is not built on any disputed question of fact and the order is patently erroneous.'mr. mankad also relied upon a decision of a. n. surti, j. in special civil application no. 410 of 1981 decided on 19-2- ..... of the division bench of this court consisting of m. p. thakkar, j. (as he then was) and r. c. mankad, j. in letters patent appeal no. 17 of 1981 decided on 3-2-1981(reported in 1982 guj lh 645).in the aforesaid decision, it has been held that when alternative remedy by ..... respondent-returning officer, failed to exercise his aforesaid powers coupled with duty as enjoined upon him under r. 10 (2) of the said rules, his decision is patently erroneous and liable to be quashed. in this connection, mr. mehta heavily relied upon a decision of a. n. surti, j. in special civil appln. no ..... said gram panchayat.2. xx xx xx xx 3. mr. n. j. mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that first respondent-returning officer had patently erred in law in rejecting the nomination paper of petitioner no. i on the ground that she had not stated her number in the voters' list. he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1982 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Godhra Electricity Co. ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-25-1982

Reported in : (1983)32CTR(Guj)141; [1983]140ITR657(Guj)

..... so, since the licensee was in law entitled to unilaterally increase the rates as held by the division bench of this court in the letter patent appeals and later affirmed by the supreme court, it is obvious that the enhanced rates had come into operation and the licensee had a legal ..... the assessee to the effect that the amount would be offered for taxation if the judgment was in favour of the assessee. after the letters patent appeals were disposed of by a division bench of this court, the right of the assessee to unilaterally increase the charges/rates came to be ..... sixth schedule to the said act. the respective consumers feeling aggrieved by the decision of the division bench of this court in the aforesaid two letters patent appeals carried the matter to the supreme court. the supreme court its judgment dated february 26, 1969, affirmed the view expressed by the division bench ..... this court in the aforesaid two letters patent appeals reversed the decrees passed in favour of the respective consumers and dismissed both the suits holding that under the electricity (supply) act, as amended ..... somlal [1967] 8 glr 686. the assessee feeling aggrieved by the decision in the aforesaid two second appeals rendered by the learned single judge, preferred letters patent appeal nos. 42 and 43 of 1966 which were disposed of by a division bench of this court on december 3, 1968. the division bench of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1982 (HC)

Gujarat Housing Board Vs. C.G. Desai

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-13-1982

Reported in : (1982)2GLR489; (1983)ILLJ387Guj

..... to be total non-compliance with the time-table prescribed by paragraph 2(1) of exhibit 17. it was therefore contended by mr. raval that the learned trial judge was patently in error when he took the view that the review of the plaintiff's case by the review committee on the expiry of a few months after the plaintiff actually ..... to come to that conclusion b. k. mehta, j. relied upon a division bench judgment of this court consisting of j. b. mehta and t. u. mehta, jj. in (letters patent appeal no. 290 of 1974 decided on 26th march, 1976) [19789 s.l.w.r. 226 (guj.)]. j. b. mehta, j. who spoke for the division bench observed that when .....

Tag this Judgment!


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