Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1980 Page 6 of about 68 results (0.017 seconds)

Jan 11 1980 (HC)

Kundan Lal and anr. Vs. Mehtab Ram and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-11-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H182

order1. this is a revision petition by kundan lal et cetera, petitioners, against the order of the subordinate judge, second class, kaithal, dated april 9, 1979, setting aside the award.2. briefly, the facts are that the petitioners and the respondents started a business of manufacture and sale of bricks in partnership under the name and style of m/s. cheeka brick kiln indusry at cheeka. they executed a deed of partnership on september 20, 1968. one of the terms in the deed was that in case of dispute relating to partnership business, it would be referred to arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the indian arbitration act (hereinafter referred to as the act). some disputes arose between the patties and the petitioners filed an application under section 20 of the act in the court of the subordinate judge, praying that the matter be referred to the arbitrator. he referred it to the arbitration of bua ditta brick-kiln-owner.3. the arbitrator made an award and filed it in the court on november 4, 1976. the respondents raised an objection against the award that no points well framed by the court upon which the arbitrator was to give the award and, therefore, it was not sustainable. the objection of the respondent was upheld by the subordinate judge vide order dated april 9, 1979. he therefore set aside the award. the petitioners have come up in revision against the said order to this court.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1980 (HC)

Krishna Rani Vs. Chuni Lal Gulati

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H119

1. the couple though married as far back as on 10th june, 1959 and blessed with three children, appears not to have been able to make a success of it. it was the appellant-wife shmt. krishna rani (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner wife), who had in the first instance taken out divorce proceedings in march, 1978 which came to be dismissed on 1st sept., 1978 in default. it is there after chuni lal., husband (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-husband) who took up the initiative by filing the present petition of 15th nov., 1978 under s. 13 of the hindu marriage act seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. it was alleged in the petition that the wife has been of a nagging type constantly insulting him even in the presence of his friends, she had been neglecting the children for whom she would not cook meal in time, would frequently bear them and maintain an atmosphere in the house which was constantly surcharged with tension; that she was self-willed to the extent that she would leave the house and remain away for days without his permission. by way of illustration, it was mentioned that in nov. 1977, she went away to haridwar without his permission and returned to the house after a week, giving an instance of insulting behavior it was mentioned that on 18th jan., 1978. his friends om prakash chadha and dr. sanjay sachdev visited his house. she declined to prepare tea for them, created a scene by beating the children with the result the guests left the hose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1980 (HC)

Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Harbans Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-27-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H161

1. this appeal at the instance of the wife is directed against the judgment dated february 12, 1980 of the additional district judge, patiala, where by he granted, a decree of divorce to the husband against wife under section 13(1a) of the hindu marriage act (hereinafter called the act). the husband had secured a decree for restitution of conjugal rights of may 15, 1978, and after the passage on the requisite period envisaged for section 13(1a) of the act sued for divorce.2. evidence was led before the matrimonial court on behalf of the appellant-wife, showing that she had been keen to comply with the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights secured by her husband against her and had also been applying to the matrimonial court that she was prepared to comply with the decree, but the husband had frustrated her attempts to do so. it was on the basis of this material on the record that it was argued on behalf of the wife that in view of the provision of s. 23(1) of the act, a decree of divorce could not be granted to him as it would tantamount on his part to be taking advantage of his own wrong. the trial court relying o a full bench decision of this court in smt. bimla devi v. singh raj, air 1977 punj and har 167, held that such an objection is no longer tenable. before the full bench the facts were that the judgment debtor wife had frustrated the execution of the decree for restitution of the period envisaged under section 13(1a) of the act she herself sued for divorce on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1980 (HC)

Sarup Chand Vs. Nagar Palika, Sangrur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-06-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H114

order1. the plaintiff-petitioner bar filed this revision petition against the order of the trial court, whereby application under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, field on behalf of respondent no. 2, talia ram, has been allowed.2. the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against nagar palika, sangrur, to the effect that the defendant be restrained from demolishing and breaking the wall, mentioned in the notice dated 11th june, 1979, issued by the defendant. during the pendency of this suit, one talia ram filed an application under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, with the prayer that he be impleaded as a respondent in the suit. his case is that there is one lane shown by letters abc in the site plan attached and there was a wall in front of this lane which wall was demolished in the year 1978, and any relief granted to the plaintiff in his absence, is likely to affect him adversely, and that he ought to be arrayed as a party so that court may be able to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit this application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff and it was stated that he has got no interest in the suit property and he is not affected thereby. the trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to implead talia ram as defendant. it has been observed by the trial court, that 'contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1980 (HC)

Trading Engineering Vs. Nirmala Devi and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-05-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H115

order1. this is a petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, against the order of the commissioner under workmen's compensation act, dated l4th september, 1979.2. one shri ram chander, workman, resident of sohna, dist. gurgaon, died in an accident on 6th january, 1976. his: widow, shrimati nirmala devi, respondent, filed an application under the workmen's compensation act, 1923, on l3th november, 1978, claiming death compensation of her husband. along with that application, an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the indian limitation act, was also filed in the written statement filed on behalf of the employer, an objection was taken that the application was not maintainable, as the widow has already received rs. 10,000/- under the motor vehicles act, 1939, as she had applied for compensation along with the parents of her deceased husband in the court o! the motor accident claims tribunal, gurgaon, and she was awarded rs. 10,000/-. it was also stressed that the application is time-barred and also barred-under section 110-aa of the motor vehicles act, 1939. on the pleadings of the parties the learned commissioner framed the following issues:--l. whether the present application is maintainable in view of section 110-aa of the motor vehicles act, 1939, and section 3(5) of the workmen's compensation act, 1923? 2. whether the accident arose out of and during the course of employment? 3. whether the claim application is barred by the limitation ? 4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 1980 (HC)

Rajindr Parkash Vs. Roshni Devi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H212

1. this appeal arises out of an application under section 25 of the hindu marriage act, filed on behalf of the wife-respondent, for permanent alimony and maintenance,2. the facts, briefly stated, are that rajinder parkash appellant and roshni devi respondent were married in may, 1976, according to the hindu rites. on the application moved by rajinder parkash, a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties was granted on 29th of august, 2979. the divorce was granted on the ground of desertion. the application under section 25 of the hindu marriage act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the act) was filed on 19th of may. 1979 on the ground that she does not own any movable or immovable property and has no independent source of income. she further alleged that rajinder parkash owns about 10 killas of land and is getting a salary of rs. 400/- per month and is also receiving income of about rs. 500/- per month from the agricultural land. thus she claimed that she may be allowed a sum of rs. 200/- as permanent alimony. the petition was resisted by rajinder parkash appellant. it was told by him that shrimati roshni owns land has income from the land which is sufficient for her needs. he mentioned that he is getting a salary of rs. 300/- per mensem and he has to support his aged parents and a sister.3. on the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed :-1. to what amount of maintenance the petitioner is entitled to in proceedings under section 25 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1980 (HC)

Balwant Singh Gill and ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh Brar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-08-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H139

order1. this revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order of the subordinate judge first class faridkot dated february 8, 1979 disallowing an application under o. 12 rule 4, code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code).2. briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for the recovery of rs. 46,000/- against the defendants. the plaintiffs completed their evidence on october 24 and 25, 1978. thereafter gurdev singh defendant appeared as his own witness on december 8, 1978 and his statement was concluded on january 16, 1979. on that date, i. e. january 16, 1979 the plaintiffs filed an application under order 12 rule 4 of the code praying that a notice be issued to the defendants to admit certain facts. the application was opposed inter-alia on the ground that no such application could be filed at that late stage. the leamed trial court dismissed the same. the plaintiffs have come up in revision against the said order,3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under o. 12 rule 4, no period has been prescribed for serving such a notice. he argues that even if the plaintiffs had completed their evidence they had the right to serve a notice under the said rule and the learned trial court erroneously rejected their application.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties at n considerable length but am not impressed with the contention. it is not disputed that the plaintiffs completed their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1980 (HC)

Renuka Batra Vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-11-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H146

order1. this is a petition filed on behalf of the objector (third party) against the order of the executing court dated 5th may, 1979, whereby her preliminary objection has been decided against her.2. grindleys bank limited obtained a decree for rs. 99,904.82 ex parte on 5th april, 1978, and lodged execution in which warrant of attachment was issued to the executive engineer all india institute of medical sciences, new delhi, prohibiting the payment to the judgment debtor firm. smt renuka batra, a sole proprietor of batra associates, filed an objection petition under order 21 rule 58 of the code of civil procedure in which a preliminary objection was taken that the court at amritsar had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant of attachment prohibiting the payments outside its jurisdiction at delhi. on the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issue was framed on 3lst march, 1979, and the parties did not produce any evidence o this issue, though full opportunity was given:--'whether this court has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of injunction? opdh'3. the executing court came to the conclusion that the warrant of attachment has been properly issued by the executing court at amritsar as it had the jurisdiction and there is no illegality about it reliance has been placed or. british transport co. ltd. v. suraj bhan, air 1963 all 313 and gayoor ahmad khan v. hazarimal, air 1965 raj 41. feeling aggrieved by this order, the objector has come up in revision to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1980 (HC)

Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corpora ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-29-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H117

order1. messrs. mohan meakin breweries limited plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) sought against himachal pradesh horticulture against marketing and processing corporation limited (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) permanent injunction and rendition of accounts for infringement and passing off under section 105/106 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958. it was averred in the plaint that apple juice manufactured by the defendant corporation was sold under the impugned trade mark 'golden crown' in ludhiana and therefore, ludhiana courts had the jurisdiction to entertain any try the suit in question. the defendant corporation challenged the jurisdiction of ludhiana court and the trial court, therefore, framed the following preliminary issue for decision at the threshold :'whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit?'2. the plaintiff examined gurdip singh and kamlesh kumar chamiji as p.w. 1 and p.w. 2 respectively. kamlesh kumar dhamij, who claimed himself to be the assistant manager of trade links, ludhina, stated that his company was the distributor of the goods manufactured by the plaintiff-company was the distributor of the goods manufactured by the plaintiff company including apple juice under the trade mark 'gold coin'; that in pursuance of the direction of the plaintiff company, he had purchased 6 bottles of 'golden crown' apple juice from deep store at ludhina who issued him cash memo marked 'a' one of the said six .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1980 (HC)

Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sant Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-12-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H143

1. this appeal filed on behalf of the oriental fire and general insurance company ltd., arises out of a claim-petition in which as award out of a claim-petition in which a award of rupess 12,000/- has been given in favour of the claimants (respondent nos. 1 & 2) in equal shares against joginder singh, the owner of the truck and the insurance company both individually and collectively.2. the accident took place on 24th of january 1970, at about 8.30 a. m., in which joginder, who was coming to jullundur city from village khurla kingra on his cycle, was crushed due to rash and negligent driving of gurmail singh, driver of the truck no. pnq-207. at the time of the accident the owner of the truck was joginder singh, respondent no, 6. in the claim -application it was averred that the truck in question was insured and owned by girdhari lal respondent and that the same was insured with the oriental fire and general insurance company limited. this claim petition was contested on behalf of joginder singh the owner of the truck and its driver gurmail singh. in the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company, preliminary objection was raised that the accident if any was due to the negligence and non-observance of the traffic rules, by the deceased for which the insurance company is not liable to pay any damages. it was also pleaded that the insurance company is also not liable to pay and damages as the vehicle was transferred to another persons and as such the vehicle was .....

Tag this Judgment!

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