Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 13 of about 154 results (0.008 seconds)

Aug 26 2005 (HC)

Mohd. MinhajuddIn S/O Shaikh Habib Qureshi Through His Lrs. Noor-ul-ha ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-26-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR225; 2006(2)BomCR172; 2006(1)MhLj163

..... record, which she done with her best effort.7. shri s. v. gangapurwala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the wakf board aurangabad is patently erroneous, without jurisdiction and, therefore, non-est. he contended that by deed dated 12th october, 1965 a wakf was created from that date property vests with the wakf; the wakeef .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

Kiran Machine Tools Vs. D.D. Hinge and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-18-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR237; 2006(3)BomCR369; [2006(109)FLR253]; (2006)ILLJ410Bom; 2006(1)MhLj286

..... functus officio and it could not have entertained the application. the order passed by the labour court rejecting the application for restoration therefore cannot be termed as manifestly erroneous or patently illegal so as to call for interference under article 227 of the constitution.8. in the result, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. rule discharged. no costs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2005 (HC)

Ramdularibai Badrilal Chaurasiya and ors. Vs. Mohan Shrimal Nahar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-26-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR751; 2006(2)BomCR130; 2006(1)MhLj358

..... , learned advocate for petitioners submitted that the view taken by the learned adj relying on the judgment of this court in the case of vinayak nirgun's case (supra) is patently erroneous and, thus, the adj has committed an error appearing on the face of the record in allowing the appeal filed by the tenant. he pointed out that the judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2005 (HC)

Mohanlal Nevadram Bhatia Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-25-2005

Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR131; 2006(2)BomCR787; 2006(1)MhLj467

..... the notification at annexure-a, was withdrawn after 15-11-1988 i.e. the date on which the learned single judge decided the controversy which formed subject-matter of letters patent appeal. however, in the facts and circumstances, of the present case, as the appeal itself was decided by the resident deputy collector and the resident deputy collector was the appellate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2005 (HC)

Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs. Capt. Atul Wasudeo Divekar and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-26-2005

Reported in : IV(2006)BC424; 2006CriLJ606; 2006(1)MhLj700

..... fine and therefore, the order passed by the learned magistrate directing that in default of payment of compensation, the applicant will have to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days is patently illegal. he submitted that under section 389 of the said code, the learned additional sessions judge could not have imposed condition while suspending substantive sentence by directing the applicant to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Laxman N. Deshmukh Vs. Madhukar B. Deshmukh

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-14-2005

Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR257; 2006(1)MhLj882

..... district judge, who decreed the suit held that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the land. hence, it was submitted that the order of the executing court is patently without jurisdiction.9. on behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the civil revision application under section 115 of the code of civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2005 (HC)

Arun Keshavrao Mone (Mane) and ors. Vs. Ramesh Balvant Baxi and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-16-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR136; 2006(2)MhLj203

..... by a single judge of the high court in an appeal preferred under section 76, trade marks act, constitutes a judgment within the meaning of cl. 15 of the letters patent. in : [1998]2scr648 , saiyad mohammad bakar el-edroos v. abdulhabib hasan arab hon'ble apex court has stated that in proceedings for settling scheme under section 50a of bombay public .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2005 (HC)

Balasaheb S/O Vithalrao Suryawanshi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharash ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-03-2005

Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR240

..... 6 as required under the act. the ratio laid down by the apex court in the case of bihar state housing board v. state of bihar and ors. : 2003crilj411 is patently clear that the notification needs to be published by three modes and there is no option left with any one to give up or waive any one or other of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2005 (HC)

Kishorekumar Mohanlal Kothari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-30-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR675; 2006(3)BomCR842; 2006(2)MhLj591

..... . the apex court observed that protest against the award of the collector is implied notwithstanding acceptance of the compensation. therefore, the district judge and the high court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants. that where the claimants receiving without protest the compensation awarded by the collector, it is held that they are not merely .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2005 (HC)

Gebi Bapuji Banjari (Yerwal) Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-06-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR348; 2006(2)MhLj697

..... will manifest their intention. therefore, the protest against the award of the collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. the district judge and the high court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants.the learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of this decision of the apex court, there should be no doubt about .....

Tag this Judgment!


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