Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1980 Page 7 of about 68 results (0.016 seconds)

Oct 10 1980 (HC)

Mohinder Singh Sohal and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-10-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H199

1. this judgment will dispose of three appeals viz., f. a. o. nos. 169 and 170 of 1975 filed by the parents of deceased sukhwinder singh and gurbinder singh and f.a. o. no. 171 of 1975 filed by injured balwinder singh.2. three real brothers, namely, sukhwinder singh, gurbinder singh and balwinder singh were going on motor cycle no. dhm-2452 when a government jeep no. him-3633 coming from opposite direction and being driver rashly went out of control of the driver and came to the wrong side of the road and hit the motor cycle which was then being driven on its proper side. after the accident the driver of the jeep ran away, lieutenant gurbinder singh and sukhwinder sing died at the spot and balwinder singh sustained serious injuries.3. the parents of sukhwinder sing and gurbinder singh claimed compensation of rupees one lac in regard to the death of sukhwinder singh and rupees one lac on account of death of gurbinder singh, balwinder singh claimed rupees three lacs as compensation on account of the damage and monetary loss that he suffered as a result of the accident.4. the tribunal found that the jeep was driven rashly and on the wrong side of the road when the accident occurred; that the motor cycle was proceeding; on its right side at that time; that the jeep was driven by sh. ramesh kumar; and that sukhwinder singh who was driving the motor cycle contributed to the accident to the extent of 40% as he did not have driving license and carried on the motor cycle besides .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1980 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Vs. the Union Territory of Chandigarh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-11-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H205

order1. the plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial court, dated 18th october 1979, whereby his application under section 113 read with order 46 and section 151 of the code of civil procedure has been dismissed.2. the learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that no revision petition is maintainable against the order of the learned subordinate judge, dismissing the plaintiffs application under section 113 of the code of civil procedure, because it is for the trial court to state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the high court. since the trial court was not satisfied that the case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any act. ordinance etc., the high court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, writ not direct the court to refer the same to the high court. i find force in this contentions. section 113 of the code of civil procedure, reads as under:--'subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, any court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the high. court, and the high court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit:provided that where the court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any act. ordinance or regulation or of any provision contained in an act. ordinance a regulatiat4 the determination of which is necessary for the disposal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1980 (HC)

Parveen Chander Chadha and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Thapar and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-18-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H217

1. this appeal has been sled by the plaintiffs against an order of the additional district judge, ludhiana, dated july 25, 1979. 2. briefly, the case of the plaintiff appellants is that parveen chander plaintiff no. 1 entered into partnership with defendant no, 1 vide partnership deed dated february 5, 1974 and started a firm in the name and style of shiva forging for manufacturing drop forged hand tools. it is stated that the firm manufactured and sold tools under the trade mark of shiva. it is further aver red that the firm spent huge amount in giving publicity. the said firm was dissolved on september 7, 1878, vide dissolution deed of even date. it is alleged that defendant no. 1 transferred a1p rights in the partnership including assets, liabilities, good will, trade mark et cetera to plaintiff no. 1. 3. it is next averred that defendant no. 1 after retirement from the said partnership-started a firm in the name and style of shiva forgings for manufacturing drop forge hand tools et cetera, and started its business is ludhiana, it is then stated that he is illegally using the name of shiva with the sole object of passing at his goods as the goods of the plaintiff. consequent)y, he (plaintiff no. 1) and his firm filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that defendant no. 1 along with defendant no. 2 be restrained to use the name of his firm as shiva forgings, passing off his goods as such and for rendition of accounts. 4. during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1980 (HC)

Sarwan Singh and anr. Vs. Banti and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-18-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H349

order1. the defendant petitioners have come up in revision against the order of the trial court whereby an application of the plaintiffs for restoration of their pauper application has been allowed. 2. the plaintiffs filed a suit in forma pauperis for the recovery of rs. 50,000/- as damages and compensation for the injuries caused by the defendants on their person. the suit was instituted on 22nd march, 1975. along with this suit an application under order 33 c.p.c. was also filed and it is unfortunate that the matter of pauperism is still pending for final adjudication. on 22nd september 1977, the application under order 33 c.p.c. was dismissed in default, as none was present. the next day i. e. on 23rd september, 1977, an application for its restoration was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs which was contested by the defendants. on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-- 1) whether there is sufficient cause for restoration of the pauper application dismissed for default of appearance? o. p. p. 2) relief. 3. after going through the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the absence of the plaintiffs and their counsel from the court on 22nd september, 1977, was not intentional and, therefore, there is sufficient cause for restoration of the pauper application. consequently, the application was allowed. feeling aggrieved against this order, the defendants have come up in revision to this court. 4. the learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1980 (HC)

Karti and ors. Vs. Rattia and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-01-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H185

order1. the facts, in brief, are that during the pendency of the suit before the subordinate judge first class, karnal, the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application praying for permission to produce a certified copy of a mortgage deed from the office of the sub-registrar, karnal as the original mortgage deed is said to have been los. the application for additional evidence was moved after the argument had been addressed in the case and the case was fixed for pronouncement of orders. the trial court by means of a detailed order, dated march 31, 1980, allowed this prayer, subject to the payment of rs. 250/- as costs, as the prayer for additional evidence had been made at a late stage. the defendants-petitioners have some up in revision against the aforesaid order.2. mr. k. s. kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was no sufficient cause made out by the respondents so as to entitle them to the concession of additional evidence at such a late stage of the case. there is no gainsaying that the prayer for additional evidence was indeed made at a belated stage, but the law by now is well settled that not only additional evidence but even the amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings howsoever late, if it does not cause any prejudice to the opposite party and if the opposite party can be duly compensation by costs. in the present case the document required to be produced is a certified copy of a mortgage deed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1980 (HC)

Tek Chand and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-23-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H339

d.s. tewatia, j.1. the petitioners have impugned the resumption of the property in dispute firstly on an all-embracing ground that it was without the authority of law alternatively, regulation 6 of the governor general-in-council's order no. 179 dated 12th sept. 1836, which had been invoked in issuing the impugned notice of resumption annexure g' dated 17th mar. 1971, by respondents nos. 1 and 2, is being labelled as null and void as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, ranted under arts 31 and 19(1)(f) of the constitution of india, and, in any case, the action of resumption is said to be suffering from the vice of discrimination and thus violative of art. 14 of the constitution.2. before embarking upon a consideration of contentions based on the aforesaid three grounds, it is apt to first clear a confusion in regard to the identification of the property in dispute sought to be resumed.3. from the pleadings of the parties including the replication filed on behalf of the petitioners, the facts which indisputably emerge are that the petitioners father, lala duni chand, held on 'old grant' terms as contained in the governor general-in-council's order no. 179 dated 12th sept. 1838 an area of 2.98 acres in ambala cantt. on 30th of july 1941, the petitioners father secured on lease from the central government, vide annexure 'a', en area of 0.38 acres out of the area of 2.98 acres held on 'old grant' terms the lease, which was initially for 90 years was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1980 (HC)

J.K. Chowdhury Vs. Ashis Benerji

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-14-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H51

order1. facts giving rise to this revision petition under section 115, civil p. c. are that the plaintiff -petitioner gave the house in question on lease to the defendant at a monthly rent of rs. 1750/- from 16th september, 1977 and for a period of eleven months. a lease deed was accordingly executed. after 15th august, 1978, the defendant stopped payment of rent. the cheques issued by him bounced once or twice. the plaintiff then served notice on the defendant calling upon him to vacate the house within three months. upon the failure of the defendant to vacate the house,the plaintiff instituted a suit on 3rd /4th october, 1979, claiming possession of the house and rs. 21,000/- as arrears of rent. the defendant though served, did not put in appearance in the court of the senior sub-judge gurgaon, on 3rd december, 1979.hence, the case was adjourned to the following 17th for recording ex parte evidence. in the meantime the defendant on 13th december, 1979, put in an application under order 9, rule 13 read with section 151, civil p.c. for setting aside the order on the ground that he had fallen ill on 2nd december, 1979, and that he recovered on the following 10th.the court set aside the ex parte proceedings against him a,nd fixed 7th january 1980 to enable the defendant to file written statement.on 7th january, 1980 again the defendant absented himself. the court then adjourned the proceedings to 15th january,1980 for ex parte evidence. after recording the same the court on .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1980 (HC)

True Lines (India) Industries Vs. the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commi ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-07-1980

Reported in : [1980]46STC402(P& H)

j.v. gupta, j.1. this order will dispose of l. p. a. nos. 3 to 10 of 1977 as all of them arise out of one order whereby eight writ petitions were dismissed.2. it is sufficient to refer to the facts in l. p. a. no. 3 of 1977 arising out of writ petition no. 1530 of 19761. the appellant, m/s. true lines (india) industries, was assessed to sales tax by the assessing authority, ludhiana, by order dated 29th january, 1973. on 22nd january, 1976, the deputy excise and taxation commissioner, ludhiana, issued a notice purported to be under section 21(1) of the punjab general sales tax act, 1948 (hereinafter called the (1) [1977] 39 s.t.c. 258. act), informing the appellant that he had called for the record of the proceedings of the assessment order dated 29th january, 1973, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and propriety of the proceedings and that he proposed to give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard from all aspects of the matter. at the bottom of the notice, it was stated as follows :remarks.-the sales of rs. 1,02,056.48 and rs. 1,06,807.50 taxed at the rate of 1 per cent and 3 per cent respectively under the central sales tax act, 1956, shown to m/s. shambhu lal nanji & co., bombay, were denied and seven other firms.3. the appellant questioned the validity of the abovesaid notice by a writ petition on the ground that the deputy excise and taxation commissioner was not in fact trying to revise the order of assessment of the assessing authority, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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