Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: karnataka Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 26 results (0.006 seconds)

Jan 24 1986 (HC)

Gurusangappa Vs. Sangameswar Primary Teachers' Co-operative Society Lt ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-24-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR1095

..... of limitation, and as the petitioner has not made out any good case to the effect that the dismissal of his appeal on the ground of limitation suffered from any patent error of law, in the normal course, we should have dismissed this petition.5. however, in view of the finding recorded by the tribunal in the same order that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1986 (HC)

Arun Prasad Vs. Chairman, Selection Committee

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-04-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR1781

..... selection committee to allot candidates by using its discretion. the discretion appears to be wide, but like every other discretion of a responsible authority or body it shall not be patently arbitrary or fanciful.there then follows rule 11(2)(c) which states that selection shall be made first to the government medical colleges and then for government seats in private .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1986 (HC)

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-17-1986

Reported in : [1986(52)FLR443]; ILR1987KAR353; (1986)IILLJ95Kant

..... said order, the petitioner has presented his petition. 3. sri h. b. datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of the industrial tribunal suffered from patent error of law, in that, not only for the reason that the tribunal had failed to notice that in all the statements made before the inquiring authority, the first respondent ..... face of these glaring facts and admissions, the view taken by the tribunal that no misconduct was committed by the first respondent within the meaning of the standing order is patently untenable and perverse. 16. whatever that may be, the quantum of penalty imposed appears to be excessive, as pleaded by the first respondent. it is not in dispute that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 1986 (HC)

Commissioner for Excise, Karnataka and ors. Vs. J.L. Morison

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-03-1986

Reported in : 1986(10)ECC262; 1986(25)ELT660(Kar)

..... . entry 14e in the schedule to the central excises and salt act, 1944, at the relevant point of time read as under : ------------------------------------------------------------------------'item description of rate ofno. goods duty------------------------------------------------------------------------14e. patent or proprietary medicines notcontaining alcohol, opium, indianhemp or other narcotic drugs or othernarcotics other than those medicines ten per centwhich are exclusively ayurvedic, unani, ad valorem.sidha or homeopathic.explanation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1986 (HC)

P. Tej Raj Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-10-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR2701; 1986(2)KarLJ24

..... applicants instead of granting all the applications of kstdc or of itdc was in public interest. certainly such distribution promotes healthy competition and is in public interest. we find no patent error of law in the order of the tribunal. therefore, the order of the tribunal cannot be interfered with.45. one of the objections raised against the grant of permits ..... his downfall employed such a classification.'(underlining by us)therefore, if the expression 'tourist cars' were to mean only tourist motor cars/cabs and not omnibuses, the provision would be patently violative of the article for, operators of a tourist omnibus in which 35 to 50 passengers are carried at a lime as against only 5 passengers in a tourist motorcar ..... . in any event clause (iv) of the proviso which provides for the grant of approval for being placed in preferential category only in respect of operators of tourist cars is patently discriminatory as against such of the petitioners who have been operating tourist omnibuses. if a person who has operated tourist car for some time is regarded as entitled to preferential ..... also the following question arise for consideration.whether the order of the sta in full or in part liable to be set aside on the ground that it suffers from patent error of law ?first question- the constitutional validity :12. the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on this question may be summarised as follows : all the persons who intend .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 24 1986 (HC)

K.M. Abbaiah Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-24-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR2901; 1986(2)KarLJ186

..... metres from the centre of the site. this statement shows that the licensing authority had measured the distance from the centre of the proposed cinema site. thus there was a patent error of law in the order of the licensing authority granting the license. the above aspect was considered by the government. the relevant portion of the order reads :'the houses ..... by measuring the distance from the centre of the site that the district magistrate had held there were no residential houses within 50 metres and the district magistrate committed a patent error in doing so, followed the ratio of the judgment of this court in shivappa's case5. we are, for these reasons unable to agree with the view taken by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1986 (HC)

S.K. Sharma Vs. Corporaion of the City of Bangalore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-18-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR2536

..... sl. no. 2 above, you are permitted to proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. sd/-commissionerbangalore city corporation.'the petitioner contends that this order is patently illegal and not bona fide as it was made without recording a statement that the plan was not violative of zoning regulations.19. sri k.r.d. karanth, learned counsel ..... . the height of the building put up by this respondent from the ground floor level is about 73'. the averment that the built area is over 12000 sq. ft is patently false. the built area as per the sanctioned plan is only 9875 sq. ft. the other averments in this para have already been traversed while filing statement of objections to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1986 (HC)

Bharath Electronics Ltd. Vs. K. Kasi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-17-1986

Reported in : ILR1987KAR366; (1987)IILLJ203Kant

..... appointed by the management. 8. one other ground on which the domestic inquiry was held invalid was that presenting officer was not appointed. this view of the tribunal is also patently untenable. there is no legal compulsion that presenting officer should be appointed. therefore, the mere fact that the presenting officer was not appointed is no ground to set aside the ..... officer was not appointed was also perverse, and further the view that just because the inquiry officer had put some questions to the witnesses the inquiry stood vitiated was also patently untenable. 4. sri gopal gowda, learned counsel for the first respondent-workman, however, contended that everyone of the findings recorded by the industrial tribunal was correct. he submitted that the ..... by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition. 3. sri a. g. holla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of the tribunal suffers from patent error of law in that the finding that the inquiry officer had not been appointed by the management was perverse and similarly the finding that the inquiry was vitiated just .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1986 (HC)

S. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-28-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR1086

..... since the post held by the appellant was abolished with effect from 31-12-75, the gram, of terminal leave did not arise. in our opinion the reason given is patently untenable. sub-rule (4) of rub 64 authorises the government to sanction leave standing to the credit of a non-official member on the date on which his term of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1986 (HC)

Leelavathi Alias Ranjan Bai Vs. Sharada

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-05-1986

Reported in : ILR1987KAR469; 1987(1)KarLJ225

..... india general insurance co. ltd. v. certain itbar singh : [1960]1scr168 , r.g. jacob v. union of india : [1963]3scr800 courts may depart from this rule only to avoid a patent absurdity (see e.g. state of madhya pradesh v. azad bharat finance co., : 1967crilj285 ). in hira devi v. district board, shahjahanpur, : [1952]1scr1122 this court observed :-'no doubt it is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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