Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kolkata Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 30 results (0.031 seconds)

Apr 02 1958 (HC)

Dulal Chandra Bhar and ors. Vs. Sukumar Banerjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-02-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Cal474,1958CriLJ1162,62CWN595

..... have shown no eagerness, either to allow the respondents to resume possession of the land or to return their goods. the manoeuvring for possession in which they have indulged are patent and many of them may even be wicked. but to find that they have been guilty of contempt of this court on such passive non-compliance with the implications of ..... is whether the appeal lies. it can be beld to lie only if it can be shown that the order appealed from is appealable under clause 15 of the letters patent and it can be shown to be appealable under that clause only if it is not an order of one of the excepted kinds and if it amounts to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1958 (HC)

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-05-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal616,63CWN316

..... just one mortgage in respect of some calcutta property. such view would be against the clear limitation of jurisdiction imposed by clause 12 of the letters patent.29. the other question which was canvassed by counsel for the plaintiff was that by reason of an interlocutory order having been made in this suit ..... in muttra electric supply co. v. gopal saran, 59 cal w. n. 419 mukharji, j., has held that under clause 12 of the letters patent there is a broad classification of suits in respect of which the court has jurisdiction.'the first classification is concerned with suits for land and immoveable property and ..... instituted in this court. the argument is fallacious for the reason that it assumes that in a suit for land under clause 12 of the letters patent cause of action and not situation of land will attract jurisdiction. such assumption strikes at the root of jurisdiction in suits for land under clause 12 ..... jurisdiction and whether cause of action arose within the jurisdiction are totally irrelevant. in a suit for land with leave under clause 12 of the letters patent the plaintiff has to show that whole of the land or part of the land is within the jurisdiction. the instant case before me if ..... of the letters patient. the plaintiffs third contention was that section 67a of the transfer of property act is independent of clause 12 of the letters patent and therefore section 67a of the transfer of property act confers on the plaintiff a right to combine two mortgages in one suit. it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1958 (HC)

Trilock Chand Agarwalla Vs. Dominion of India (Now as the Union of Ind ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-05-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal281

..... 2). in the special context of section 4 of the displaced persons (institution of suits) act xlvii of 1948 and of the code of civil procedure and the letlcrs patent of the chartered high court and for jurisdictional purposes the dominion of india could not be s-aid to carry on business in india or within the local limits of ..... and voluntarily', but which words are used in this particular statute. decisions of section 20(a) of the code of civil procedure and clause 12 of the letters patent of this high court holding that they do not apply to a government or a state are to be found collected in the case which i have had occasion to ..... been held in a series of decisions in this court and elsewhere in india that it does not apply to a state or a government. clause 12 of the letters patent of this high court uses some of the words used in clause (1) of section 4 of the displaced persons (institution of suits) act, 1948 in so far ..... institute the suit was not obtained.29. it is well settled that under the code of civil procedure as also under the letters patent of the chartered. high court a suit not relating to immoveable property such as a suit for compensation for loss of goods could be brought against the dominion ..... court on the original side has no jurisdiction to try this suit.28. the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit under clause 12 of the letters patent. the entire cause of action did not arise within the local limits of its jurisdiction. leave under clause 12 of the letters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 04 1958 (HC)

Saibal Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. B.K. Sen

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal106,1959CriLJ172

..... all the high courts contemplated by article 134(1)(c), which are all high courts in the territory of india, whether established originally by a charter or established by letters patent and whether established before or after the constitution, because they are all courts of record.13. on behalf of the respondent mr. banerjee drew our attention to the decision of ..... must be deemed to have been made by the learned judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction and consequently an appeal would not lie under clause 15 of the letters patent.'harries, c. j., who concurred with mukherjea, j., in a separate judgment also observed as follows:'if a contempt is criminal in its nature, it is difficult to resist the ..... sunder v. jodharaj : air1948cal214 . it is true that the question arose not on an application for leave to op-peal to the privy council under clause 41 of the letters patent, but in an appeal to the appellate division of this court from an order made by a learned judge, sitting with the original side. the facts were that the plaintiff ..... . 400/-. an appeal was taken from that order and a question arose as to whether, in view of the provisions of clause 15 of the letters patent, the appeal lay. clause 15 of the letters patent provides for an appeal from judgment of judges, sitting singly subject to certain exceptions, one of which is that no appeal shall lie if the judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1958 (HC)

Mcleod and Co. Vs. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-10-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Cal273

..... disregarded such amendments of the statute in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman. i am also of the opinion that the tribunal's decision contains a patent error in so far as he held that even though the respondent supervised the work of other clerks, he remained a clerk even after the amendment of the statute, and ..... the law or inference from such fact that he still remained a clerk 2nd, therefore, was a workman within the meaning of the industrial disputes act is a manifest error patent on the face of the proceedings and within the doctrine laid down by the supreme court in the kamath decision. 13. it is necessary to emphasise here that the proper ..... on clear ignorance and disregard of the provisions of law, and as laid down by the supreme court. the tribunal, in my judgment has in this case, (1) come to patently inconsistent and contradictory conclusions by finding that privileges and conditions of service of officers applied to the respondent employee and the service conditions of clerks ceased to apply to him ..... error apparent on the face of the proceeding, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. in other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. but it is kamath's case (c) again which points out the difficulty in the doctrine of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1958 (HC)

Gopiram Agarwalla Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-24-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal420,[1959]37ITR493(Cal)

..... remains to be determined. it appears to me, however, wholly unreasonable to consider the proceedings commenced by an application for transfer of the suit under cl 13 of the letters patent as independent proceedings. the application for transfer of a suit is and should be considered an ancillary proceeding just as an application for adjournment or some other direction by the ..... been a determination of the proceedings in the high court was not sufficient and as even after the order of transfer of a suit under clause 13 of the letters patent, the suit itself still remained to be decided, the order of transfer' or refusal to transfer would not amount to a judgment. i am unable to see how that decision ..... the authority of 8 beng lr 433, we are bound to say that the decision of sinha, j., is a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent and so an appeal lies.6. but, says mr. meyer, the oriental gas company's case 8 beng lr 433 was itself a case where a mandamus had been issued ..... the result of the lower court's decision is that the proceedings themselves are terminated, the decision is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent.4. the decision in 8 beng lr 433, has for long been considered to be at least so far as this court is concerned, the classic authority on the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1958 (HC)

Shib Kumar Banerjee Vs. Rasul Bux

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-22-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal302

..... it does not involve delivery of possession but only execution of a conveyance by the defendant, cannot be consideredto be a 'suit for land' within clause 12 of the letters patent.9. dr. das strongly relies on a decision of this court in the case of sm. bimal kumari v. asoke mitra, : air1955cal402 . it is also a purchaser's suit for ..... suit. in other words, this suit by a purchaser to enforce an agreement to sell land is a 'suit for land' within the meaning of clause 12 of the letters patent. if it is a 'suit for land,' then clearly this court is incompetent to hear this suit. for the purpose of jurisdiction, suits by a purchaser for specific performance are ..... a forged and/or manufactured document. the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit has been denied and it is prayed that leave under clause 12 of the letters patent, if granted, should be revoked.3. on the pleadings, the following issues were settled :1. was there any agreement for sale as stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint? 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1958 (HC)

Narendra Nath Dutt Vs. Jitendra Nath Dutt and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-27-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal62

..... contended that the order, although an order allowing an amendment of written statement, was a judgment and, therefore, an appeal from it would lie under clause 15 of the letters patent. mr. roy contended that no such question had been decided by the order appealed from in the present case and, indeed there had been no decision of anything at all ..... contention that the order, allowing the amendment in that case, was a judgment and what he said had a clear reference to the terms of clause 15 of the letters patent. when he said of the order before him that it did not either affect the rights of the other party or otherwise prejudice him, lie obviously meant that it did .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1958 (HC)

Jaharlal Pagalia Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-20-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal273

..... the plaintiffscause of action the defendant contends that theapplication should be refused because first, thecause of action is barred by limitation and secondly, leave under clause 12 of the letters patent is,necessary therefor and the same cannot be grantedat this stage to enable the plaintiff to add a freshcause of action.3. the phrase cause of action has not been ..... apart of the cause of action for purposes of jurisdiction. the phrase 'cause of action' has been usedboth in section 80 of the code and in clause 12 of theletters patent. i have already stated that thephrase 'cause of action' means something differentwhen applied to jurisdiction from what it meanswhen applied to the basis of the claim in suit. inthe instant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1958 (HC)

Tulsiram Bhagwandas Vs. Sitaram Srigopal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-16-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Cal389,63CWN300

..... lies from any order made by a judge on the original side, this difference justifies to a certain extent a liberal interpretation of the term 'judgment'. besides, if the letters patent of a high court grant an appeal from orders which are not appealable under the code, there can be no reason for not giving effect to the letters ..... patent simply because there would be no appeal from similar orders governed by the code. it must however be conceded that there is hardly any valid ground tor distinguishing orders setting .....

Tag this Judgment!


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