Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kerala Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.027 seconds)

Aug 12 1986 (HC)

Damodharan Vs. Meera

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-12-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Ker78

..... plain reading of section 24 of the act would clearly show that wife or husband alone can claim maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings and hence it is patent that the order of the court allowing maintenance to the children is wholly unjustified. counsel relied on air 1981 j & k 5 (puran chand v. kamla devi) and air 1982 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1986 (HC)

Rev. C.S. Joseph and ors. Vs. T.J. Thomas and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-26-1986

Reported in : [1987]62CompCas504(Ker)

..... dismissed the appeal as being non-maintainable on the ground that the impugned order of the single judge was not a judgment as contemplated by clause 15 of the letters patent of the high court. the court held that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders which decide matters of moment or affect vital and ..... order of the trial judge was one refusing appointment of a receiver and grant of an ad interim injunction, it is undoubtedly a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent both because... order 43, rule 1, applies to internal appeals in the high court and apart from it such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and ..... clause 15 of the letters pa tent... the order passed by the trial judge in the instant case being a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent, the appeal before the division bench was maintainable and the division bench of the high court was in error in dismissing the appeal without deciding it on merits.'11. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1986 (HC)

R. Nagarajan and Company Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-30-1986

Reported in : [1987]65STC34(Ker)

..... thereon. true, the appellate tribunal's power to review the order is hedged in by limitations. even so, we are of the view that if it is shown that a patent mistake or error was committed by the appellate tribunal, it is open to it to correct the same. in o.p. no. 9382 of one of us, sitting in single .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1986 (HC)

The Member-secretary, Kerala State Board for Prevention and Control of ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-02-1986

Reported in : AIR1986Ker256

..... parliament for its approval. different considerations would arise if the rules partake of the former character. this aspect has been dealt with by the court of appeal in institute of patent agents v. joseph lockwood, 1894 ac 347. the law lords were not unanimous in their view about the character and effect of such rules. the view of lord herschell appears .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1986 (HC)

State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Saroja and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-17-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Ker239

..... (a) that version remains as a myth in the light of the evidence of p.w. 1 and d.w.1. collusion between plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 is patent from the relationship and the contention taken up by defendants. the original of ext. a1 is claimed to have been executed in view of the strained relationship with defendants 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1986 (HC)

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kamalakshy Amma

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-05-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Ker253

..... facts and then to fix the quantum of compensation bearing in mind the relevant factors and guidelines. when once such an amount is determined, unless it is shown to be patently wrong or perverse or a positive basis is indicated to refute such quantum, it will not be proper for an appellate court to interfere with it. it cannot be denied .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1986 (HC)

Chandran and anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-01-1986

Reported in : 1986CriLJ1865

..... seen the accused for the first time during that night. these witnesses are also dis-interested witnesses against whom nothing could be suggested.19. from the above discussion, it is patent that 31, 32, 34 and 39 identified the three accused while 35 and 36 identified the first accused, in the presence of two others, while p .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1986 (HC)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Pathumma and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-10-1986

Reported in : I(1987)ACC461; AIR1987Ker47; [1990]68CompCas192(Ker)

..... single judge of the high court in an appeal preferred under section 76 of the trade marks act constitutes a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. the statute provided for appeal to the high court, with power to the high court to make rules in the matter. the supreme court observed :'obviously after the appeal had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1986 (HC)

Goods Agro Chemicals and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-19-1986

Reported in : 1986(10)ECC178; 1986LC218(Kerala); 1987(32)ELT565(Ker)

..... . copper in crude form as described in item 28a(1) before 1-4-1981 cannot thus include copper scrap or waste.33. we, therefore, hold that the respondent committed a patent error and in fact, exercised a jurisdiction not vested in law when it assessed the petitioner for additional duty under entry 26a(1) of the central excises and salt act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1986 (HC)

N.J. Joseph Vs. Labour Court

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-26-1986

Reported in : (1987)IILLJ180Ker

..... is not a workman as defined in section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act. the main grievance of the petitioner is that this finding of the respondent is perverse, patently wrong and vitiated by errors apparent and that there had been no proper evaluation of the evidence or consideration of the relevant materials in arriving at the conclusion.3. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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