Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: madhya pradesh Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 78 results (0.099 seconds)

Oct 03 2002 (HC)

Laxminarayan Vs. Shivlal Gujar and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-03-2002

Reported in : AIR2003MP49; [2004(1)JCR203(MP)]; 2002(4)MPHT463

..... hold that the law laid down in the case of sachish chandra jain (supra), that substitution of section 100a of thecode affects the letters patent appeals which have been preferred prior to 1-7-2002 and are pending for adjudication and hence, not maintainable, does not correctly state the ..... that aspect we think it appropriate to dissect whether section 100a of the code affects the pending appeals preferred under clause 10 of the letters patent. submission of mr. kale and mr. agrawal, the learned senior counsel is that the language employed in the said provision being quite clear, ..... court. in such appellate jurisdiction the high court exercises the powers of a court of error. so understood, the appellate power under the letters patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language. that apart the construction of the aforementioned two documents involved, in ..... and vasudeva samiar in re., air 1929 madras 381 (special bench), were approved. the learned senior counsel has submitted that the scope of letters patent appeal is in a broad sphere and to divest it from the basic feature of appeal would tantamount to amputating the conceptual eventuality of appeal. ..... in the case of sachish chandra jain (supra) that contrary intention is manifest inasmuch as there is no saving in respect of the letters patent appeal as per section 16 of the amending act is erroneous inasmuch as the said analysis suffers from an inherent and intensive fallacy. to substantiate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2002 (HC)

Dr. Sudhir Tiwari Vs. Smt. Bhagwanti Devi Issrani

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-21-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT132; 2002(3)MPLJ62

k.k. lahoti, j. 1. this letters patent appeal is preferred by defendant/tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge in first appeal no. 735/2000, dated 3-1-2002. the learned trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2002 (HC)

Municipal Corporation, Gwalior Vs. M.E.S. Builders' Association and An ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-18-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT508; 2002(2)MPLJ524

..... the enhanced recovery. it was further observed that whatever amount is recovered by the municipal corporation shall not be refunded, since such refund would amount to unjust enrichment.4. letters patent appeal no. 275/96 has been filed challenging the entire judgment, whereas other two connected appeals have been filed challenging the order refusing to refund the excess fee recovered by ..... liable to be refunded, if claimants submit their claim alongwith receipt and other documents within one month from the date of this order.13. in the result, letters patent appeal no. 275/96 fails and is dismissed. consequently, letters patent appeal no. 244/96 and letters patent appeal no. 274/96 succeed and are allowed. there shall be no order as to costs. ..... no. 244/96 (hemant kumar gupta and another v. municipal corporation, gwalior and another) and letters patent appeal no. 274/96 (gwalior local transport union and another v. state of madhya pradesh and others).2. these appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned single .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2002 (HC)

National thermal Power Corporation Vs. K.K. Shrivastava and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-23-2002

Reported in : [2003(97)FLR1065]; (2003)IILLJ1001MP; 2003(2)MPHT175; 2003(2)MPLJ122

..... no. 501/97, mpir and before this court in writ petition nos. 3956 and 3945 of 1999, the appellants have filed these letters patent appeal nos. 373 and 372 both of 2002, under clause 10 of the letters patent challenging the common order of the learned single judge passed in w.p. nos. 3956/99 and 3945/99.2. both the appeals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2002 (HC)

Ramadhar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-27-2002

Reported in : [2002(95)FLR926]; (2003)ILLJ412MP; 2002(4)MPHT217; 2003(1)MPLJ244

..... way of hypothetical defence. claim of the workman cannot be rejected being stale or opposed to the provisions of the act or inconsistent with any agreement between the parties or patently frivolous. for taking this view, reliance was placed on apex court decision in ajaib singh v. sirhind cooperative marketing-cum-processing service society ltd., (1999) 4 slr 109.4. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2002 (HC)

Pratipal Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-04-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT273

orders.s. jha, j. 1.this letters patent appeal has been filed against the dismissal of writ petition no. 809/1987.2. brief facts of the case are that appellant was granted licence in form f.l. 3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 2002 (HC)

Sachish Chandra JaIn and anr. Vs. Shri Bhagwan and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-05-2002

Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT360; 2002(3)MPLJ504

..... the case of central mine planning and design institute ltd. v. union of india and anr. [(2001) 2 scc 588] the definition of 'judgment' referred in clause 10 of letters patent has been considered. it is held that 'judgment' includes intermediary and interlocutory judgment also. an interlocutory order which is a final determination affecting valuable rights and obligations of the parties ..... acts decided by the order of single judge. no letters patent appeal lies against the order passed by single judge exercising appellate jurisdiction. as regards prejudice to the section 6 of general clauses act is concerned it is submitted that under ..... section 13 of the act. it is contended by counsel for respondents that intention of legislature is clear and apparent. legislature has not saved pending appeals and no letters patent appeal against the appellate order or appellate decree of the single bench is maintainable. appellate order is a valid connotation and it will apply to all the appeals under different ..... against the order of a subordinate court. in such appellate jurisdiction the high court exercises the powers of a court of error. so understood, the appellate power under the letters patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language.13. counsel for respondents submitted that intra-court appeal is not a vested right and therefore by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2002 (HC)

Kanhaiyalal Agarwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-27-2002

Reported in : 2002(3)MPHT47; 2003(1)MPLJ426

..... be dependent upon various factors which are to be kept in view by the railway administration and are germane to the issue.' this decision has been challenged through these letters patent appeals by kanhaiyalal agarwal, hukumchand constructions and union of india. 5. shri r.k. gupta, learned counsel appearing for railways contended that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the ..... orderbhawani singh, c.j. 1. these letters patent appeals (l.p.a. no. 173 of 2001, kanhaiyalal agarwal v. union of india and ors., l.p.a. no. 198 of 2001, hukumchand constructions v. union of india and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 2002 (HC)

Capital Roadways and Finance Private Ltd. Vs. State Transport Appellat ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-12-2002

Reported in : II(2003)ACC598; 2003(1)MPLJ571

..... dismissed by invoking powers under article 226 or article 227 of the constitution and the order of dismissal has been passed on merits. therefore, in our considered opinion this letters patent appeal is maintainable.9. now coming to the merits of the ease, the learned single judge has held that right of renewal of permit had accrued to the petitioner but ..... of the labour court, it in its decision in lokmat news papers (p) ltd. v. shankarprasad (supra), had stated that if a single judge exercises jurisdiction under article 226, letters patent appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under article 227 it will not be maintainable. but with an explanation that if the single judge of the high ..... by the order dated 13.12.2001 of the learned single judge passed in writ petition no. 1755 of 2001 of this court the petitioner-appellant has filed this letters patent appeal praying for renewal of inter-state permit for the route of itarsi to nagpur under reciprocal agreement.2. the admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was ..... the other hand, has supported the order of the learned single judge and raised a preliminary objection that no letters patent appeal lies against the order of the learned single judge.5. insofar as the non-maintainability of the letters patent appeal is concerned the learned counsel of the madhya pradesh state road transport corporation has heavily relied upon a division bench .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2002 (HC)

Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

Reported in : [2003(4)JCR325(MP)]; 2003(1)MPHT226

..... down by the bombay and karnataka high courts in vasant tatoba hargude v. dikkaya muttaya pujari, air 1980 bom 341 and govindanaik g. kalaghatigi v. west patent press company ltd., air 1980 kant. 92 (fb) respectively. in this view we hold that the decision, reported in himalaya tiles and marble (p) ..... laterdecisions of supreme court where each bench consists of equal number of judges, the later decision should prevail in govindanaik g. kalaghatigi v. west patent press co. ltd., air 1980 kant 92, the full bench of the karnataka high court has definitely held that when there are two conflicting ..... as to the actual decision, the other learned judges differed from the learned chief justice. in the karnataka full bench decision in govinda naik v. west patent press co., air 1980 kant. 92, the minority consisting of two of the learned judges speaking through jagannatha shetty, j., also took the same ..... learned judges do not record any reasons for taking this line. full bench of karnataka high court, five judge bench in govindanaik g. kalaghatigi v. west patent press company limited and anr. (air 1980 karnataka 92), said by majority, speaking through learned chief justice d.m. chandrashekhar, in paragraph 5 that-' ..... transport corporation'. 23. to the same effect is the view taken by a full bench of karnataka high court in govindanaik g. kalghatagi v. west patent press co. ltd. (air 1980 kant. 92) and by calcutta high court in sovachand mulchand v. collector of central excise and land customs (air .....

Tag this Judgment!


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