Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.007 seconds)

Oct 06 1964 (HC)

Amichand Valanji and ors. Vs. G.B. Kotak and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-06-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234

..... . 60e of necessity records by implication the fact the his majesty in council thought it either necessary or expendient, or both , to extend the powers of the comptroller under the patents (emgergency) act, 1939, s. 3, in the manner stated in the regulation.................'clausion in l.j. has dealt with this question is some detail at p. 314:'......................... the order in ..... contained in serval clauses of the s. 3(2) to the satisfied that the attack against the validity of the sid section on the ground of excessive delegation of the patently unsutatinabe. not only is legislative policy broadly indicated in the provisions of the impurged section itself give such the detailed to the specific guidance of the rule - making that authority ..... contained inter several clauses of s. 3 (2) of the be satisfied that the attack against the validity of the said section on the ground of the excessive delegation is patently unsustainble. not only is the legislative policy broadly indicated i the preamble to the act, but the relevant provisions oft impugned section itself give such detailed and specific guidance's ..... necessary...'one of the cases cited in support of the above proposition is rex v. comptroller general of patent (1941) 2 kb 306. in that case , certain order were a passed by the comptroller general of patents regulating the rights of using an enemy = owned patent. regulations 60e of the defence (general) regulations , 1930, was framed under sub -section (1) of s. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1964 (HC)

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. His Lordship the Honourable Mr. Justice T ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-09-1964

Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR214; 1965MhLJ414

..... court, itself so far as the question of exercise of judicial functions is concerned.16. even looking to the terms of clause 36 of the letters patent the same conclusion would follow. clause 36 saysany function which is hereby directed to be performed by the said high court of judicature at bombay, in ..... . chari sought to draw a distinction between a judge presiding in a court and the court itself. he pointed out that clause 36 of the letters patent speaks of a judge whereas article 226 of the constitution makes no reference to a judge but only to the high court. no doubt, the distinction ..... be modified by any provision of the constitution or by any law made by the appropriate legislature duly empowered by the constitution which now includes the letters patent. any judge of the bombay high court no less than a division bench or full bench of the high court may, therefore, perform all the ..... be performed by a single judge sitting on either side of the court.10. the combined effect of article 225 read with clause 36 of the letters patent is therefore, clear. after the constitution the respective powers of the judges in relation to the administration of justice remain the same as before the constitution ..... by an appropriate legislature.9. in order to find out what were the powers prior to the constitution we must tarn to clause 36 of the letters patent of this court. clause 36 declares that. any function which is hereby directed to be performed by the said high court of judicature at bombay, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1964 (HC)

Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Vs. Purshottam Motilal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-04-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Bom287; (1964)66BOMLR525; 1964MhLJ668(SC)

..... has in the property, and which the errant purports to convey.' the entire question was fully reviewed by the division bench of the bombay high court in bavasaheb v. west patent press co. ltd. : air1954bom257 . the material part of the lease provided thus: ' ...... at the end of the remaining years outof the agreed period of 30 years, you may continue on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1964 (HC)

Azam Shah Vs. M.R. Tribunal and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-18-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Bom76; (1964)66BOMLR605; ILR1964Bom843

..... or grave miscarriage of justice, or there is substantial failure of justice which are all aspects of failure of justice, or if the tribunal neglects mandatory provisions, or passes a patently unjust or illegal order by arbitrary procedure, or the order is without jurisdiction or any principles of natural justice are violated. an order is not liable to be set aside .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1964 (HC)

Salubai Ramchandra Vs. Chandu Sadhu

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-17-1964

Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR69; 1965MhLJ203

..... which is heard by a single judge, there being a different right of appeal with regard to single judge decisions under clause 10 of the letters patent. if it is conceded that no party has a vested right to be heard by two or more judges in the high court it follows as ..... power given under section 108 of the government of india act, 1915, is preserved by reference to the said section in clause 36 of the letters patent and has been kept alive and re-affirmed by the government of india act of 1935 and by the constitution of india. under section 108, the high ..... and matrimonial jurisdiction respectively. it may he pointed out that reference to section 108 of the government of india act, 1915, in clause 36 of the letters patent was because the act of 1861 was repealed by the government of india act, 1915, and the latter act provided for the matters, which were contained in ..... 24 & 25 victoria, chapter 104, passed on august 6, 1861, provided by section 1 thereof for the establishment of the high courts by grant of letters patent at calcutta, madras and bombay. under section 13 of the said act, it was provided that the high court established under the act may by its own ..... the administration of justice, including power to make rules for regulating the practice of the court, as were vested in them by letters patent, and, subject to the provisions of any such letters patent, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were vested in the courts at the commencement of the act. section 108, sub- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1964 (HC)

SadruddIn Suleman Jhaveri Vs. J.H. Patwardhan and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-31-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Bom224; (1965)67BOMLR101; ILR1965Bom394; 1965MhLJ290

..... to the special land acquisition officer, the declaration that the land is needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose in the notification under section 6 would be patently illegal for it would not fulfill the requirement of the proviso to section 6. it would also indicate a complete non-application of the mind. we shall show a little ..... as to the source from which the funds came, he could never have come to a correct decision as to whether there exists a public purpose or not. it is patent that there was no application of mind or a wrong application of mind by commissioner upon the facts then known to him. that in itself, in our opinion would vitiate ..... on behalf of the officers of government or of the corporation or the commissioner were further controverted by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 21st july 1964.(58) it is patent that the case on behalf of the commissioner, the respondent no. 1 before us, has been improved from time to time and the original stand taken in the first affidavit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1964 (HC)

The Municipal Corporation Vs. Lala Pancham

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-01-1964

Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR782

..... by the plaintiffs to the high court which was dismissed summarily by datar j., on august 25, 1961. on the same day the plaintiffs preferred an appeal under the letters patent which went up before a division bench consisting of patel and palekar jj. the learned judges permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint over-ruling the objections of the defendants ..... before the trial court and ordinarily they would not have been entitled to lead fresh evidence at that stage, much less so at the stage of the appeal under letters patent. according to them, however, it is not possible to dispose of the case on the material on record, that there are certain documents on record which, if unexplained,support in ..... the fact that in such a case a party should not be allowed to adduce fresh evidence at the appellate stage and much less so at the stage of letters patent appeal. then it observed:if the case had rested thus the matter would have been very simple apart from the amendment application. it seems to us however that it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1964 (HC)

Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-02-1964

Reported in : [1965]56ITR470(Bom)

..... in 1948. 19. mr. joshi on behalf of the department has challenged this finding of the tribunal and he has urged that it is based mostly on conjecture and is patently incorrect upon the evidence. he has pointed to the evidence of babulal dated 6th march, 1963, when he was examined by the appellate assistant commissioner and argued that babulal in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1964 (HC)

Jamnadas and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-13-1964

Reported in : [1965]56ITR648(Bom); 1965MhLJ55

..... jurisdiction. the net wealth that is mentioned in sections 4 and 5 has reference to the net wealth of an individual. the assets referred to in these sections obviously and patently must be of the ownership of the individual assessee. there is nothing in sections 3, 4 and 5 being sections relating to charging provisions and provisions for computation of assets .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1964 (HC)

Khanchand Pokardas Vs. Harumal D. Varma

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-20-1964

Reported in : (1964)66BOMLR829; 1965CriLJ75; 1965MhLJ143

..... mys 188. the other ruling relied upon by the learned trial judge viz., in alexander v. indra krishna : air1933cal706 it must be pointed out, was in case under the letter patent and the question was not considered with reference to section 19 of the civil procedure code.(4) in this view of the matter, it is really unnecessary to decide the question as .....

Tag this Judgment!

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