Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1983 Page 1 of about 66 results (0.053 seconds)

Apr 04 1983 (HC)

State of Punjab Vs. Savitri Devi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-04-1983

Reported in : AIR1983P& H305

..... accused-respondent could be convicted.8. the prosecution case also suffers from such glaring infirmity that no conviction could possibly be rested thereon. what first catches the eye is the patent improbability of the version propounded on behalf of the prosecution. it emerges from the dying declaration that when the deceased went to the kitchen to fetch sugar for preparing tea ..... . kamal kanta remained conscious throughout, while her statement was begin recorded. it also emerges from the statement of dr. khazanchi, that in those days, the friend the relations of the patents could visit them in the hospital from 3 p. m. to 5 p. m. it is true manifest that the statement, exhibit p. q., was recorded after the relations of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1983 (HC)

State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-03-1983

Reported in : AIR1984P& H1

..... provided under section 9(1) of the act. the distinction between the public notice provided under section 9(1) and the special individual notice under section 9(3) is too patent to call for elaboration and consequently the said judgment is in no way any warrant for the proposition that an inadvertent failure of service under section 9(3) of the ..... to him to prefer a reference under section 18 of the act by specifically condoning the delay and allowing a further period of three months for doing so. this letters patent appeal moved by the state of punjab originally. came up before my learned brother d. s. tewatia, j. and myself. at that, stage the judgment of the learned single judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1983 (HC)

Sunanda Maudgal Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-10-1983

Reported in : AIR1983P& H370

..... of rupees 45,000/- was awarded to the claimant as compensation long with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum thereon.3. the challenge in this letters patent appeal, filed by mrs. sunanda maudgal, is with regard to the amount awarded as compensation. the finding of the learned single judge with regard to negligence of the respondent-bus ..... thereon, from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. the judgment of the learned single judge is modified accordingly.17. this letters patent appeal is thus accepted to the extent indicated above with costs. counsel's fee rs. 500/- .s.s. sandhawalia, c. j. 18. i agree.19. order accordingly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1983 (HC)

Kulbhushan Kumar and Co. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-23-1983

Reported in : AIR1984P&H55

..... that in the punjab united pesticides and chemical limited's case (supra). the special leave petition and the appeal were directed against a limine order of dismissal by a. utters patent bench of this high court. the afore-quoted short observations of their lordships make it plain that the correctness or otherwise of the full bench in indo swiss time limited ..... that merely following or reiterating an earlier judgment by a co-ordinate bench does not in any way enhance its weight or its binding nature in the event of its patent conflict with a hierarchy of co-equal benches. for these added reasons also we are inclined to hold that the observations in punjab united pesticides and chemicals limited's case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1983 (HC)

Amar Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-10-1983

Reported in : 1984CriLJ783

..... for the purpose of computing the amount of remission of sentence which might be awarded to him under any rules in force relating to such remissions. significantly, the said act patently revolves around the good conduct of the prisoner as taken note of in section 2 which provides that it must appear to the state government from the antecedents and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1983 (HC)

iqbal Singh and anr. Vs. S. Sohan Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-27-1983

Reported in : AIR1984P& H20

..... have been granted interest. on. the whole amount of compensation from the date of the application.19. for the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the letters patent appeals with but partly accept the cross-objection and grant interest to the claimant respondent at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on whole ..... j & k 89) (supra)referred to by mr. suri. consequently, we hold that order 41, rule 22, civil p. c., is applicable to letters patent appeals from first appeals. the present appeal is against the judgment of a learned single judge in a first anneal and, therefore, the cross-objections by the claimant ..... or not was left open. the relevant observations are as follows:--'.....the first point that arises is whetdter there can be cross-.objections in the letters patent appeal. on this point, there might have been originally some conflict of authority, but the matter appears to be set at rest by a privy ..... mr. suri.12. now, we deal with the cross-objections of the claimant-respondent. a preliminary objection has been raised by mr. suri that in letters patent appeal, the cross-objections are not maintainable as order hl, rule 22, civil p. c., is. not applicable to such appeals he relies on sukhanand ..... the evidence and come to the conclusion that the accident, took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the car. in the letters patent appeal, we are not inclined to upset the finding of fact arrived at be the learned judge by reappraising the evidence. consequently, we reject the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1983 (HC)

Shila Wanti and ors. Vs. R.H. Kishore Chand and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-21-1983

Reported in : AIR1984P& H35

s.p. goyal, j.1. this appeal. under clause 10 of the letters patent has been brought against the judgment of the learned single judge dated june 3, 1977 whereby the appeal of the claimant. was dismissed as having abated.2. gian chand joshi. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1983 (HC)

Smt. Chhano Devi and ors. Vs. Shri Het Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-30-1983

Reported in : [1986]59CompCas941(P& H)

..... matter within the purview of the tribunal whose verdict was affirmed by the learned single judge. we do not propose to reassess the value of this oral evidence in letters patent jurisdiction. so far as the admissibility of the documents, exhibits r-l and r-2, is concerned, no illegality is shown to have been committed in this respect in the ..... of the violation of the terms of the policy committed by the driver, is affirmed.8. the net result is that letters patent appeals nos. 299 and 300 of 1979 are accepted to the extent indicated above, while letters patent appeal no. 251 of 1979 stands dismissed. in the circumstances of the case, the parties in all these appeals are left to ..... surinder singh, j. 1. this judgment will dispose of letters patent appeals nos. 299 and 300 of 1979 and letters patent appeal no. 251 of 1979. the first two appeals, which are in fact a duplication, have been filed on behalf of the claimants, chhano devi and others, the legal representatives .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1983 (HC)

Lal Chand and anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-20-1983

Reported in : 1983CriLJ1394

..... somewhat identical situation and on the identical materials in the final report, the sessions court cannot do what the committing magistrate undoubtedly can, seems to me as something which is patently untenable. evendehorns the procedural provisions, on larger principle also, one sees no adequate reason to fetter and shackle the powers of the superior court of session from summoning a person ..... additional accused to stand trial when on the material before it, it is satisfied that there exists a conclusive or in any case a prima facie case against him. one patent example would be when the investigating officer in its report under section 173 of the code, without any reason or basis whatsoever exonerates a person specifically named in the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1983 (HC)

Bata India Limited Vs. the State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-02-1983

Reported in : [1983]54STC226(P& H)

..... insistent reliance on the single bench judgment in malabar fruit products company, bharananganam, kottayam v. the sales tax officer, palai [1972] 30 stc 537, which was affirmed by the letters patent bench in yusuf shabeer v. state of kerala [1973] 32 stc 359 and was also approvingly referred to by their lordships of the supreme court in state of tamil nadu ..... fact was a tax on the use or consumption of goods. it was this contention which was repelled by the learned single judge and affirmed in appeal by the letters patent bench. their lordships of the supreme court whilst referring to the said judgments expressly noticed that therein the primary argument was that the charging section imposes a tax not on .....

Tag this Judgment!

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