Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kolkata Year: 1972 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.008 seconds)

Jan 28 1972 (HC)

Prem Nath Mayer Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-28-1972

Reported in : AIR1972Cal261,76CWN459

..... the words 'fruit salt', which were descriptive only, and not deceptive, yet under the circumstances they were calculated to deceive the public within the meaning of section 73 of the patents, designs and trade marks act, 1883, and that the trade mark ought not to be registered. the court of appeal reversed the decision of kay j., on the ground that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 1972 (HC)

Chunilal Basu and Anr. Vs. the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-15-1972

Reported in : AIR1972Cal470,76CWN681

..... was illegal and ultra vires, the act, namely, the calcutta high court (jurisdictional limits) act, 1919 which was passed under the power derived from clause 11 of the letters patent, 1865 should also be considered to be invalid, illegal and ultra vires. they further challenged the provisions of the above mentioned calcutta high court (jurisdictional limits) act. 1919 which ..... that the same having not been based upon any reasonable classification at present is hit by article 14 of the constitution of india. according to the petitioners, the letters patent aforesaid and all the acts, things and practices based thereupon are highly illegal and outrageous to the elementary concept of nationality and sovereignty and repugnant to the constitution of india ..... appropriate to show cause why a writ of the nature of certiorari direrting the respondent or some of them to bring the relevant records and paper connecting with the letters patent for the high court at calcutta and the rules prevailing in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction prescribing such limits as indicated in the calcutta high court (jurisdictional limits) act, ..... to the case of jalan trading co. (p) ltd. v. mill majdoor sabha. : (1966)iillj546sc . mr. justice shah speaking for the court observed:'..... if the classification is not patently arbitrary, the court will not rule it discriminatory merely because it involves hardship or inequality of burden. with a view to secure particular objects a scheme may be selected by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1972 (HC)

Nurul Hoda and ors. Vs. Amir Hasan and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-31-1972

Reported in : AIR1972Cal449,76CWN1039

..... allahabad, bombay. rajasthan, punjab and manipur high courts holding the view that order setting aside abatement is not 'judgment' within the meaning of letters patent. we need not refer to the said decisions which were cited at the bar. in calcutta high court, however, there has been a contrary ..... more than a step towards obtaining the final adjudication on the merits of the dispute in the proceeding is not judgment within the meaning of letters patent, (iv) where the decision involves adjudication on the question of limitation or jurisdiction of the court, in certain cases, such decisions would amount ..... decision in the case of radhey shyam v. shyam behari singh, : [1971]1scr783 there the supreme court was considering clause 10 of the letters patent of the allahabad high court, which was similarly worded. the respondent in that case had obtained a decree for rs. 9,000/-. in execution proceedings ..... application, which is nothing more than a step towards obtaining a final adjudication in the suit, is not a judgment within the meaning of letters patent'. the supreme court indicated that the supreme court was not giving an exhaustive definition of the word 'judgment'.5. the question, therefore, is does ..... necessary to deal with three supreme court decisions, two of which deal with the meaning of the expression 'judgment' in clauses of the letters patent of the high courts and the other with the question of the nature of the order setting aside abatement. counsel for the appellant relied very .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1972 (HC)

Kanailal Ghosal and ors. Vs. Ena Dutta

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-22-1972

Reported in : AIR1974Cal24,77CWN572

..... . dasgupta's contention, that the decree passed in the suit had not become final on the material date because of the pendency of the letters patent appeal, the application under section 17-e of the west bengal premises tenancy act would in any event be still not maintainable on that footing, ..... as the decree for recovery of possession of the premises in question passed in the suit has not become final because of the pendency of the letters patent appeal no. 14 of 1969 on the date of the commencement of the west bengal premises tenancy (second amendment) act, 1969. mr. bhattacharya in ..... to direct the said court to dispose it of on merits. mr. justice arun kumar mukherjea and mr. justice murari mohan dutt while dismissing the letters patent appeal with costs, also dismissed the defendants-appellants' application under section 17-e without any costs and without giving any direction, as prayed for, or ..... passed on 3-2-72 by the high court, which according to him did not however pass any order on the application while dismissing the letters patent appeal. the second dimension of mr. dasgupta's arguments is that on merits, the prayer of the defendants-petitioners should have been allowed inasmuch as ..... in the meanwhile started the execution case, being title execution case no. 45 of 1969, for taking khas possession of the suit premises. the letters patent appeal ultimately was dismissed on 3-2-72 by mr. justice arun kumar mukherjea and mr. justice m. m. dutt and while dismissing the appeal their .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 1972 (HC)

Chittaranjan Mondal Vs. Sankar Prosad Sahani

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-18-1972

Reported in : AIR1972Cal469,76CWN781

..... appointed ex parte. his lordship was of the view that the order was appealable. it was a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. it is also appealable under order 43, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure. mookeriee, j. has considered extensively the view of sir richard couch, ..... c. j. has laid down three tests for determining whether an order is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the corresponding clause of the madras letters patent these tests are as follows:--(1) if its effect is to put an end to the suit or proceeding so far as the court before which the ..... or partly any of the matters in dispute in the suit itself, mr. roy choudhury contends that the word 'judgment' in clause 15 of the letters patent means a judgment or decree which decides the case one way or the other either in its entirety or in part it does not, says mr. roy ..... says that the order of amaresh roy, j. dismissing the application for injunction is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. the order according to mr. roy choudhury does not affect the merits of the controversy between the parties nor does it determine any right or liability of ..... amaresh roy. j. and his lordship dismissed the application on the 23rd november 1971. against this order of dismissal the tenant-defendant has preferred a letters patent appeal and this rule has been obtained in connection with that appeal.2. mr. roy choudhury appearing for the plaintiff in the ejectment suit has raised a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1972 (HC)

Hiralal Deb Gupta Vs. Salil Kumar Paul and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-20-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Cal320,77CWN374

..... application or not. there cannot be any doubt that adjudication of rights finally by the decree will undoubtedly be a judpmcnt within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. the decision of the division bench in ronwari lal roy's case ilr (1955) 1 cal 299 to which we have earlier referred makes it clear that an appeal from ..... the letters patent. on the merits mr. mitter has contended that the learned trial judge was right in imposing condition in the matter of granting leave as the defence sought to be taken ..... the decree does not lie. mr. mitter has argued that sec. 96 of the code of civil procedure has no application to this court and clause 15 of the letters patent which governs the appeal is also of no assistance as a decree passed under order 37 of the code is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1972 (HC)

Sailendra Nath Ghosal Vs. Smt. Ena Dutta

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-03-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Cal128

..... the second appeal and affirmed the decree for ejectment passed by the courts below. dutt, j., however, granted to the defendant leave to appeal under clause (15) of the letters patent hence this appeal.7. mr. das gupta. learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that dutt, j. had no jurisdiction to frame an issue on a case not ..... m.m. dutt, j.1. this appeal under clause (15) of the letters patent against the judgment of our learned brothersalil kumar dutt. j. is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for ejectment.2. the plaintiff instituted a suit jeor ejectment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1972 (HC)

Manindra Nath Bose Vs. Balaram Chandra Patni and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-28-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Cal145

..... j. allowed the appeal and granted the declaration as prayed for by the plaintiffs. niyogi j., however, granted leave to appeal to the defendants under clause 15 of the letters patent. the defendants preferred an appeal to the division bench. the division bench consisting of chakravarty and datta, jj., was of the view that there was a conflict of decisions of ..... justified in declaring the plaintiffs' exclusive right to ferry from hingulganj ghat. we would, accordingly, uphold the judgment and decree passed by niyogi, j.15. in the result, the letters patent appeal no. 29 of 1964 preferred by the defendants-appellants is dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not make any order for costs in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1972 (HC)

Bijoy Kumar Karnani Vs. Lahori Ram Prasher

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-17-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Cal465

..... to the existence of undue influence exercised by the plaintiff over his younger brother and nephews is one of the fact and is not open to question in a letters patent appeal against the decree of the second appellate court, when there is evidence in support of the finding.13. dr. das relied on page 203 para 52 of the judgment ..... he did not come. in view of the above matter i hold that this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. leave under clause 12 of the letters patent has been granted by this court and leave was not revoked. the defendant did not apply for revocation of leave. in my view the leave under clause 12 has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1972 (HC)

income-tax Officer, g Ward and anr. Vs. India Foils Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-06-1972

Reported in : 76CWN549,[1973]91ITR72(Cal)

..... decision ofthe supreme court in t.s. balaram, income-tax officer v. volkart brothers. inthat case it was held that a mistake apparent from the record must be anobvious and patent mistake and not something which could be establishedby a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there mightconceivably be two opinions. it was also held that the power ..... that it was a mistake apparent from the face of the records. a mistake must be apparent on the face of the records. it must be an obvious, clear and patent mistake. one which is not so apparent and which requires a long and elaborate reasoning and arguments on points on which there may be conceivably two or more opinions (sic .....

Tag this Judgment!


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