Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: karnataka Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.005 seconds)

Jul 27 1964 (HC)

Shivarudrappa Girimallappa Saboji and anr. Vs. Kapurchand Meghaji Marw ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-27-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Kant76; AIR1965Mys76; (1965)1MysLJ158

..... liable to be denounced as unconstitutional by reason of any repugnancy between its provisions and the provisions of the bombay civil courts act, 1869, or clause 16 of the letters patent, which are both existing laws for the obvious reason that the president's assent which the impugned act received rendered the repugnancy, if any, inconsequential under the provisions of ..... the suggested interpretation on the 13th and 46th entries of the concurrent list of the constitution cannot succeed and becomes unsustainable.(57) the provisions of clause 16 of the letters patent cannot therefore lend any assistance to the challenge to the constitutionality of sections 19 and 29(2)(c) of the impugned act.(58) but mr. savanur, however, contended ..... jurisdiction ensured by article 225 of the constitution or the continuance in operation of an existing law under article 372 is subject to similar legislation. clause 44 of the letters patent for the high court of bombay emphasises the vulnerability of the jurisdiction created by clause 16 to appropriate legislation. so, in my opinion, mr. savanur cannot derive any substance ..... in national sewing thread co. ltd. v. james chadwick and bros. ltd., : [1953]4scr1028 , the supreme court explained that legislative competence to alter the jurisdiction created by the letters patent also resided in the provincial legislature. likewise, the jurisdiction transmitted to this court by section 52 of the states reorganization act is again stated in section 69 of that act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1964 (HC)

Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labo ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-12-1964

Reported in : (1965)ILLJ353Kant

..... respondent 1 has refused to accord approval for the dismissal of his four workmen (respondent 2 in each of these petitions, who will be hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') on patently erroneous grounds and therefore he seeks to have those orders quashed. 3. respondent 1 refused to accord the approvals prayed for under s. 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes ..... so it must be held that the petitioner has complied with the conditions laid down in the proviso to s. 33(2)(b) of the act. respondent 1 committed a patent error of law in holding that the conditions laid down in the proviso in question have not been satisfied. the error committed by respondent 1, in this regard also, is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1964 (HC)

The Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-12-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Kant295; AIR1965Mys295; (1965)1MysLJ287

..... first respondent has refused to accord approval for the dismissal of his four workmen (2nd respondent in each of these petitions, who will be hereinafter referred to as 'workman') on patently erroneous grounds and therefore he seeks to have those orders quashed.(3) the 1st respondent refused to accord the approvals prayed for under section 33(2)(b) of the industrial ..... , it must be held that the petitioner has complied with the conditions laid down in the proviso to section 33(2)(b) of the act. the 1st respondent committed a patent error of law in holding that the conditions laid down in the proviso in question have not been satisfied. the error committed by the 1st respondent, in this regard also .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1964 (HC)

C.N. Krishna Murthy Vs. Abdul Subban and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-06-1964

Reported in : 1965CriLJ565

..... him and so forth; these go to the foundation of natural justice and would be struck down as illegal forthwith; it hardly matters whether this is because prejudice is then patent or because it is so abhorrent to well-established notions of natural justice that a trial of that kind is only a mockery of a trial and not of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1964 (HC)

P. Bhuvaneswaraiah and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-28-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Kant170; AIR1965Mys170; (1964)2MysLJ470

..... or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers. such transgression may be patent, manifest or indirect, but it may also be disguised, covert and indirect and it is to this latter class of cases that the expression 'colorable legislation' has been applied in ..... or has not, in respect to the subject matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers. such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct, but it may also be disguided, covert and indirect and it is to this latter class of cases that the expression 'colorable legislation' has been applied in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1964 (HC)

The State of Mysore Vs. Laxman Sharanappa Shraguppi and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-26-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Kant31; AIR1965Mys31; (1964)1MysLJ302

..... . i should never entertain such an application and i do not propose to listen to-day.'(9) it is not clear from this decision whether the appeal was a letter patent appeal on leave being granted from the decision of the single judge and whether the procedure relating to such appeals provided for the respondent making a motion for cancelling leave .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1964 (HC)

Newspaper Publisher (Private) Ltd., Mangalore Vs. their Workmen (by S. ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-14-1964

Reported in : (1965)IILLJ315Kant

..... , is not legal. any compliance with that direction regarding reinstatement, would be a violation of the provisions of the factories act and such a direction cannot be sustained and is patently erroneous. the direction for reinstatement is, therefore, liable to be quashed. sri rama kamath suggested that it would be open to us to direct that the reinstatement should be subject .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1964 (HC)

N.R. Revanna Vs. T.V. Mallappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-01-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Kant258; AIR1965Mys258; (1964)2MysLJ394

..... of the tribunal that the petitioner had not made any written representation under section 57(4) of the motor vehicles act, 1939(to be hereinafter referred to as 'act') is patently erroneous,(ii) the first respondent the only contesting respondent,is estopped from contending that the petitioner had not made any written representation as required by section 57(4) of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1964 (HC)

C.K. Appana Vs. the State of Mysore and the ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Kant19; AIR1965Mys19

order(1) the petitioner who has been officiating as deputy superintendent of police on promotion from his substantive post of inspector of police, has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the memo dated 15-1-1962 which, in effect, reduces him in rank, on the ground that the provisions of art. 311(2) of the constitution had not been followed in passing that order. he has complained that the order has not only resulted in loss of higher pay and allowances but has also the effect of postponement of his future chances of promotion and consequent loss of seniority.(2) the facts relevant to the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are few and simple; the petitioner who is a double graduate of the madras university joined the police department in the former coorg state as sub-inspector of police in 1935 and served in that capacity till 1-11-1949, when he was promoted as inspector of police. he was confirmed in the latter grade in 1950 and was the seniormost inspector of police on 1-11-1956, when the new state of mysore came into being under the states reorganisation act, 1956. the petitioner expressly stated that prior to that date he had been recommended for appointment as deputy superintendent of police on the basis of seniority as there was a clear vacancy in the coorg state but that the state government only placed him in charge of the office of deputy superintendent of police in that vacancy with the usual .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1964 (HC)

J. Devaiah Vs. Nagappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-14-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Kant102; AIR1965Mys102; (1964)1MysLJ488

(1) this is an appeal under section 116-a of the representation of the people act, 1951, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. it arised from the decision of the election tribunal, mysore, in election petition no. 48/62 on its file.(2) the appellant is the returned candidate in the general elections held in 1962, from the mandya constituency to the mysore state legislative assembly. the first respondent herein was the petitioner before the tribunal. he is one of the voters in that constituency. the second respondent was one of the defeated candidates. he was the congress nominee. the third respondent was yet another candidate who contested the general elections without success. the tribunal set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt practices falling under section 123(4) of the 'act' during the election. it declared the second respondents having been elected despite the fact that he had secured less voters than the appellant. aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal, the appellant has come up in appeal to this court.(3) polling in the mandya constituency took place on 22-2-1962. the results of the elections were announced on 26-2-1962. the appellant secured 23,299 votes, the second respondent 22,639 and the third respondent 3,304. consequently, the appellant was declared elected. the first respondent herein, who is a voter in that constituency, filed the election petition challenging the validity of the election of the appellant .....

Tag this Judgment!


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