Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: guwahati Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 30 results (0.013 seconds)

Jan 20 2005 (HC)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mustt. Rejina Begum and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jan-20-2005

..... of reasoning. where two inferences are reasonable and the subordinate . court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent..(7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the ..... complicated arguments or an error in a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivable be two opinions cannot be called a patent error. in a writ of certiorari the high court may quash the proceedings of the tribunal, authority or court but may not substitute its ..... the proposition that an error apparent on the face of record can be corrected by certiorari. the broad working rule for determining what is a patent error or an error apparent on the face of the record was well set out in satyanarayan laxminarayan hegde v. mallikarjun bhavanappa tirumale (sic). ..... . if an inferior court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all ..... is in point - where the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obstructive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2005 (HC)

Pursottam Das Chokhani Vs. Sarita Devi Nathani

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Dec-13-2005

..... . if the arbitral tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the act, it would mean that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction and thereby the award would be patently illegal which could be set aside under section 34'. we fail to appreciate as to how the said judgment in ongc ltd. upon which reliance has been placed by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2005 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-08-2005

..... to the respondent against claim nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13, had the arbitrator not rejected the counter-claims by committing patent illegality and legal misconduct. therefore, the learned arbitrator is required to reconsider the counter-claims of the respondents and to pass an award by making necessary adjustment ..... superintending engineer was wholly improper and wrongful and being without proper application of mind, which on the face of clause 2 of the contract agreement is patently illegal. the decision of the arbitrator being contrary to the agreed terms and conditions of the contract, is violative of section 28(3) of the ..... matter' and, therefore, the rejection of the counter-claim of the appellant authority by the arbitrator, on the ground that recession of contract was wrongful, is patently illegal, the same being contrary to the agreed condition of contract, which is, therefore, also violative of section 28(3) of the act.73. the appellant ..... act. the said counter-claims having been illegally rejected, which is apparent on the face of the award, the entire award has to be set aside being patently illegal, though the claim of the respondent-contractor against claim nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 may not be the 'excepted ..... price of the material as claimed under claim no. 5. hence, the award passed by the arbitrator against claim no. 5 is a nullity being patently illegal because of clause 10(cc) of the contract agreement.63. the claim no. 10 for rs. 18,01,701 for compensation by way of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2005 (HC)

Rehan Ahmed Laskar Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-16-2005

..... in the eye of law. he maintained that the decision of the disciplinary authority that imputation nos. i and viii were also proved, disagreeing that the inquiry authority was also patently illegal inasmuch as no prior opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the matter. there was no objective consideration of the materials on record by the disciplinary authority .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2005 (HC)

Tilak Barman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jan-25-2005

..... prevailing facts that the petitioner's invaluable right of representing against his detention has been contravened without any justification whatsoever. the approach of the state authorities is inexplicably negligent and patently opposed to the binding constitutional and statutory mandates. the incurable lapse on the part of the state authorities in transmitting the petitioner's representation to the central government and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 2005 (HC)

Chairman and Managing Director, Hindusthan Paper Corporation Ltd. and ...

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jun-09-2005

..... apex court in surjit singh and ors. v. union of india and ors., : air1997sc2693 , in which the tribunal refused to correct the mistake on technical grounds, held that: when a patent error is brought out to the notice of the tribunal, the tribunal is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law by way of review of its orders .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2005 (HC)

Dhananjay Mudoi and anr. Vs. Smt. Guan Mudoi and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jun-08-2005

..... below, as the discussion recorded in the impugned judgment and order reveals, had approached the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record in the correct perspective and no patent illegality is noticeable so as to reject the conclusions as manifestly perverse or being vitiated by any error on the fundamental principle of law or procedure. the findings recorded by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2005 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Member, Motor Accident Claims Trib ...

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-03-2005

..... the learned tribunal while deciding the case. the high court can exercise of the power under article 227 of the constitution of india only in the event such error is patent and shockingly illegal. it is also not permissible to the high court to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence on record in exercise of power under article 227 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2005 (HC)

Prabir Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Amulya Bhushan Paul

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jun-20-2005

..... as already mentioned hereinabove, was decided in favour of the defendant no. 1 and the decree granted by the learned trial court was set aside. hence, the present letters patent appeal.7. resisting the appeal, at its very threshold, mr. s. n. chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that even if the case of the ..... of baroda reported in (2004) 2 gauhati lr 478, has. however, laid down that the letters patent appeal, which have been instituted before coming into force of the said amendment act, arc maintainable. the lpa has accordingly been taken up for hearing by us.2. ..... could be taken up for hearing, the code underwent another set of broad based amendments and in terms of the civil procedure code amendment act, 2002, the provisions of letters patent appeal have been done away with. then the question arose as to whether the lpa was maintainable. a division bench of this court pinku trading corporation v. bank ..... high court, on 5-7-1974, allowed the appeal of the defendant and set aside the impugned decree. the plaintiffs, on 3-8-1974, filed a letters patent appeal in the high court, but when the appeal came up for hearing, the same was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of ..... i.a. ansari, j.1. this letters patent appeal has a fairly long history. the plaintiffs-appellants instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property. the trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2005 (HC)

Sivaji Saha Vs. Shah Md. Farid and anr.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-28-2005

..... , (1993) suppl. 1 scc 9 and susila bai v. nihalchand, (1993) suppl. 1 scc 11.3.4 we thus hold that no letters patent appeal lies against the judgment passed by the learned single judge of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india.4. even otherwise also we do not find ..... .3.3 in sukhendu bikash barua v. harekrishna de, air 1953 calcutta 636 (para 11), it was held by a division bench of the calcutta high court that no letters patent appeal lies against an order passed by a judge under article 227 of the constitution of india. similar is the view taken by the supreme court in rdccb v. dinkar ..... rules states the applicability of chapters iv and v, as far as may be, in regard to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. this clause 15 has obvious reference to clause 15 of the letters patent of the calcutta high court, which reads as under:- 15. appeal from the courts of original jurisdiction to the high court in its appellate .....

Tag this Judgment!


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