Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: himachal pradesh Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.007 seconds)

Mar 25 2004 (HC)

Kala Vs. Amrit Kumar and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-25-2004

Reported in : 2005ACJ427

..... ) corporeal personal property, which includes movable and tangible things such as animals, furniture, merchandise, etc. and (2) incorporeal personal property which consists of such rights as personal amenities, stocks, shares, patents and copy rights.19. considering the inclusive nature of the definition of the word 'property' (quoted above) a wider meaning has to be given to the term, that is, property .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2004 (HC)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nant Ram and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-19-2004

Reported in : II(2005)ACC286,2005ACJ1408

..... authorised respondent no. 3 to drive a heavy goods vehicle. on both the counts the tribunal's findings are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record as well as patently in violation of the express provisions of motor vehicles act, 1988, which have been noticed by me earlier in this judgment.21. for the foregoing reasons, i am convinced that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2004 (HC)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Man Bhadur and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-21-2004

Reported in : 2005ACJ533,[2005(104)FLR741]

..... whichever is more;'2. a bare look at the aforesaid provision of law clearly points out that there is an error apparent on the face of the award which is patently contrary to, and in violation of, the explicit provision of law. this error, therefore, requires rectification. the relevant factor of 221.37 had to be multiplied with rs. 120, being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 2004 (HC)

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-30-2004

Reported in : 2005(3)ARBLR187(HP)

..... . 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.'9. in the present case, the arbitral tribunal travelled beyond its jurisdiction when it declined oral hearing to the petitioner-claimant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2004 (HC)

Shirish Batra Vs. Pal Transport Company and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-08-2004

Reported in : 2005ACJ1447

v.k. gupta, c.j. 1. this appeal under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.3.1998 passed by the learned motor accidents claims tribunal (ii), solan district at solan in m.a.c. petition no. 15-ns/2 of 1993. even though this appeal has been filed at the instance of two appellants, namely, shirish batra, minor through his father sharat batra and sharat batra himself, mr. deepak gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted and stated before me that the appeal insofar as it relates to the appellant no. 2 sharat batra may be treated as not pressed and rightly so because admittedly, in view of the explicit legal position as contained in section 166 of motor vehicles act, 1988, a claim petition before the tribunal is maintainable only by or at the instance of the person injured in the accident and not by a third party. through the medium of this appeal, appellant shirish batra seeks the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal in the judgment under challenge in this appeal.2. brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant shirish batra was injured in a motor accident on 16.5.1993 at chail, tehsil kandaghat in solan district while, being a student of 8th class of manav bharti india international school, panchsheel park (south), new delhi, he along with his classmates, other students of the school and teachers had gone to chail on a visit. at about 1.15 p.m. on 16.5. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (HC)

Rajiv Jassi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

Reported in : II(2004)DMC683

r.l. khurana, j. 1. the appellant, dr. rajiv jassi, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stands convicted by the learned sessions judge, solan, in sessions trial no. 25-k/7 of 2000 vide judgment dated 3.12.2001 for the offence under section 302, indian penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to fine of rs. 5,000/-. in default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. prosecution story, in brief, may be thus stated. the deceased dr. suman lata, daughter of pw 9 ram kishan, was married to the accused on 25.4.1998. the deceased at the relevant time was posted as a dental surgeon at civil hospital, chail in district solan, while the accused was posted as a medical officer in the primary health centre, gharuan in district ropar (punjab). 3. the relationship between the deceased and the accused became estranged immediately after marriage due to the demands for dowry being made by the accused and his parents as well as due to the excessive drinking habits of the accused, who while under the influence of liquor used to give severe beatings to the deceased. 4. on 23.5.2000 pw 8 anil kumar visited the deceased (his sister) at chail and stayed with her. on the night intervening 25th and 26th of may, 2000 at about midnight, the accused reached chail at the house of the deceased. he was dead drunk at that time. he started abusing, kicking and beating the deceased. when pw 8 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2004 (HC)

Dalip Kumar Vs. Rajesh Sahani and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-15-2004

Reported in : III(2004)ACC714,2005ACJ309

v.k. gupta, c.j.1. one of the grounds urged in this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation as has been awarded by the tribunal vide its judgment dated 15.10.2001 passed in m.a.c.c. no. 219-s/2 of 1998 is that the claims tribunal wrongly rejected the application of the appellant-claimant for permission to adduce additional evidence. i have seen the tribunal's order dated 27.8.2001 and find that the claimant's prayer for permission to examine dr. r.s. yadav has been disallowed without properly appreciating the merits of the prayer. it appears that in a slipshod manner, the tribunal disallowed the appellant's aforesaid prayer, despite the fact that the examination of dr. r.s. yadav as one of the claimant's witnesses was very highly relevant and material for proper adjudication of the issues involved in this case, especially for determining the quantum of compensation on the ground of, and related to the disability suffered by the claimant-appellant. not only that the tribunal does not appear to have assigned valid or cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant's aforesaid prayer.2. by now, it is a commonly accepted proposition of law that in trying claim petitions under section 166 of motor vehicles act, 1988, the motor accidents claims tribunals established under section 165 of the act do not have to follow the rigours of procedural law as are prescribed either in the civil procedure code or in other acts and that these tribunals should adopt and follow a liberal .....

Tag this Judgment!

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