Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kolkata Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.008 seconds)

Dec 13 1956 (HC)

Evans Medical Supplies Ltd. Vs. Moriarty (inspector of Taxes).

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-13-1956

Reported in : [1958]33ITR700(Cal)

..... by him of the secret knowledge of the process that he is carrying on. that secret knowledge is as much his capital asset as is the patent monopoly the capital asset of the patentee.'the position then is, in my opinion, that at the date of the agreement the company was in ..... well-known aircraft designer mr. frederick handley page had worked out, but which were not capable of being registered or of being the subject of letters patent, slesser l.j. said : 'what was his property his property was the knowledge which he had acquired of the methods for constructing these machines..... ..... to which it was referable to secret processes properly so called; that is, to formulae or secret processes truly analogous to the subject-matter of letters patent, copyright and things of that kind. it would not, for example, include the sort of information recorded in the plans which were shown to us ..... remember that such a case has ever happened - he surrenders his monopoly in consideration of a payment, the payment he received for the sale of the patent or the payment he received for surrendering his monopoly would be a capital asset in his hands and none the less so because, after surrendering the monopoly ..... and continued :] we were referred to a very large number of cases. for the most part they deal with such obvious subject-matters of property as patents or copyrights and show that a parting with some interest in these, even though limited, may be equivalent to parting, with a capital asset, especially .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1956 (HC)

M.M. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-26-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal430

..... taken under the ecclesiastical acts, this will not prevent interference where there was a lack of jurisdiction. a case very much 'on all fours is r v. comptroller-general of patents, 1953-1 all er 862 (e), where lord god-dard, c. j., held that it did not follow that because there was a right of appeal under section 44(1 ..... ) of the patents act 1949, from a tribunal before which an objection to jurisdiction was taken, the power of the divisional court to issue an order of prohibition was taken away. it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1956 (HC)

Tarak Chandra Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Ratan Lal Ghosal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-21-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal257,61CWN263

..... appellate court on both the points and dismissed the appeal, but he gave leave to the tenant for a further appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. the letters patent appeal came up for hearing before das gupta and guha, jj., on the 22nd may, 1956, but before that date, the act of 1950 had ..... with our answer on the point of law referred shall go back to the referring bench for final decisions.51. costs--costs in the second appeal, letters patent appeal and civil revision case respectively--hearing fee five gold mohurs in each case.k.c. das gupta, j. 52. i entirely agree with my lord ..... argument, to my mind, is plainly untenable and proceeded on a misconception as to the meaning and effect of clause 21. the clause of the letters patent merely means that the high court, as an appellate court, shall not apply any law which the trial court could not have applied and if that court ..... the act of 1950 could still be applied and procesdings initiated under that act could still be continued. his contention was that clause 21 of the letters patent made it obligatory on the high court, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, to apply the law which the court of first instance ought to have applied and ..... or incurred liabilities or rcending proceedings beyond the 31st of march, 1956.31. i may refer at this stage to an argument based on the letters patent but only to say that i am unable to follow it. the learned advocate who advanced the argument was appearing for the respondents in one of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1956 (HC)

Jagannath Upadhyay Vs. Amarendra Nath Banerjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-18-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal479,61CWN841

..... case. even if section 12 be excluded, this would by itself, furnish a good cause for extension of time for the filing of the present letters patent appeal under the above rule and would protect and preserve the same from being time-barred by sufficiently authorising exclusion or deduction of the period, spent, ..... come within the scope and benefit of that provision. the appellant could not have been reasonably expected to file the letters patent appeal without considering the judgment of guha, j. and, for that, a certified copy thereof was reasonably necessary and it was actually taken and filed ..... the rules of this court (vide rule 2. chapter viii, appellate side rules) provide for extension of time in the matter of filing of letters patent appeals and the court has ample power to extend the time on good cause being shown. there can be no question that the present case would ..... 12 of the indian limitation act vide imperial bucket co. v. sm. bhagwati basak : air1954cal520 . that is now settled law and it applies even to letters patent appeals vide mt. lalit kuari v. maha prasad narain singh air 1947 pat 329 (s. b.) (h). there is also no difficulty in applying section 12 ..... cause for the requisite extension of time. we proceed now to give reasons for our view.21. it appears that, along with the memo of this letters patent appeal, a certified copy of the judgment, appealed, from, namely, of guha, j. was filed. it also appears clear that, if the time taken .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1956 (HC)

Ajit Kumar Pal Vs. Sadhan Chandra Pal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-15-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Cal654,60CWN567

..... disposal with certain directions. it may be mentioned at once that it is no longer disputed that the appellant in this letters patent appeal is a thika tenant within the meaning of the words defined in the calcutta thika tenancy, 1953, and it was on that basis that guha ray, j., gave the ..... k. c. das gupta, j.1. this is an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent from the judgment and decree of guha-ray, j., by which he remanded a suit for ejectment which had been instituted by the present respondent, to the trial court, for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1956 (HC)

Tustu Charan Ghose Vs. Kali Kumar Ghose and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-11-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal122,61CWN90

..... own heirs. the question is whether there is any presumption as contended for by the learned advocate for the appellant before renupada mukherjee, j. and before us in this letters patent appeal from his decision.7. on the question whether property acquired by a widow with the accumulated savings out of the income from her husband's property is an accretion .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1956 (HC)

Pankaj Kumar Ganguly and ors. Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal560,60CWN602,(1956)IILLJ328Cal

..... determination itself, it it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. the jurisdiction in certiorari is, however, not appellate, but only supervisory. by its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected, but not also a wrong decision. illustrations of the error in the decision itself which is amenable to correction by certiorari are ignorance of the law ..... face of the record is thus also amenable to correction by certiorari. but certain further questions arise. what is the nature of the jurisdiction which the court exercises in correcting patent errors of law by certiorari? in (1922) 2 ac 128 (e), lord sumner said that the jurisdiction was one of supervision and not of review; and in rex v. northumberland ..... down that a proceeding for certiorari is not an appeal; that the superior court will not substitute its own finding for that of the inferior tribunal and that only a patent error can be corrected by certiorari, but ,not a wrong decision. manifest ignorance of the law and disregard of its provisions have been instanced as illustrations of ..... patent error. obviously', by wrong decision' only such decision on questions of fact is not meant. does it then mean that the superior court will only see in the appropriate law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1956 (HC)

Sharma Electric Engineering Works and ors. Vs. Radha Devi and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-24-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal227

..... requirement cannot but be considered to be reasonable.13. i have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the appeals were rightly dismissed by p. n. mookerjee j. and the letters patent appeals (appeals nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 1955) are dismissed with costs. the tenants are given time till the 30th june, 1956 to vacate the premises.guha, j.14 ..... other three appeals were dismissed by him.2. from his decision in all these four appeals, the present appeals have been preferred under clause 15 of the letters patent.3. as regards letters patent appeal no. 8 of 1955, which is from the decision of p. n. mooker-jee j. in second appeal no. 1154 of 1954, it was contended that p .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1956 (HC)

Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S.K. Dutt and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-11-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Cal450,[1956]30ITR525(Cal)

..... the face of the record. i suppose what it means is that if a point of law is dependant on disputed questions of fact, then if the facts are not patent, the error in law cannot be corrected. what then is the position here? if it was not an admitted fact that the company was taxed as resident during the year ..... was not apparent at ail. see 'raj krushna v. binod kanungo', : [1954]1scr913 (g). the position, therefore', is that an error of law can be corrected if the error is patent on the face of the record. it is somewhat difficult to see how an error of law could be an error not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1956 (HC)

Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazudur Union Vs. State of West Bengal and or ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-13-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Cal550,60CWN1035,(1957)ILLJ218Cal

..... a subjective opinion as to - whether any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. secondly, even if it does come to such a conclusion, or even if the, facts are so patent that tile-existence of a dispute cannot be denied, still, the expediency to refer to adjudication is left open to government. in other words, because a dispute exists it does ..... is the sole arbiter in deciding whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. that is purely subjective. in some cases, a grievance is made that the facts arc so patent that any reasonable person is bound to come to the conclusion that a dispute exists, and if it exists, then not to refer it, is mala fide or dishonest. i ..... have to be observed, e.g., he could not ascertain from one side its views except upon notice to, or in the presence of, the other parties. it is but patent that no conciliation proceedings could be carried on under such conditions. the main task of the conciliation officer is to go from one camp to the other and find out .....

Tag this Judgment!

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