Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 258 results (0.058 seconds)

May 04 2004 (HC)

State of Punjab and anr. Vs. Ex-constable Jagraj Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-04-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR514

..... by setting aside the judgment of learned single judge. 14. before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that the motion bench, while admitting the letters patent appeal, had stayed the operation of the order passed by learned single judge and, therefore, the petitioner is out of service ever-since his discharge, i.e., 1991.sd/- jasbir ..... discharge, applying rule 12.21 of the punjab police rules, 1937 (for short 'the 1937 rules').2. brief facts of the case, culminating into the filing of the present letters patent appeal, reveal that the petitioner was recruited as a constable in punjab police on 11.11.1989. it has been the case of the petitioner, as made out in the ..... v.k. bali, j.1. (4th may, 2004) - this appeal under clause x of the letters patent has been filed against judgment of learned single judge recorded in c.w.p. no. 5840 of 1992, dated august 28, 2001 vide which, ex-constable jagraj singh, the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2004 (HC)

Rishi Parkash and ors. Vs. Director Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR501

..... . 1. he further argued that the finding recorded by the learned single judge about the existence of the path for ingress and outgress to the fields of the appellants is patently erroneous. shri mittal emphasized that the appellants had filed petition under section 42 of the act when they were prevented by the private respondents from using the existing passage and ..... .1.1994 passed by learned single judge in civil writ petition nos. 11812 and 13881 of 1993.2. for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from letters patent appeal no. 124 of 1994 (rishi parkash and ors. v. director consolidation of holdings and ors.). the parties to the litigations belong to village medawas, tehsil and district gurgaon. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 2004 (HC)

Sudarshan Chopra and ors. Vs. Company Law Board and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-10-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR241(P& H); (2004)137PLR12; [2004]52SCL429(Punj& Har)

..... , however, find that mr. aggarwal's argument that as this issue had not been seriously debated before the learned single judge, this court should stay its hands in this letters patent appeal, is clearly unwarranted. it has to be borne in mind that the matter in the writ petition before the learned single judge was in the nature of a first ..... another for several years, it would be unfair to relegate the parties to arbitration at this belated stage. the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.6. aggrieved thereby, the present letters patent appeal has been filed.7. mr. ashok aggarwal, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has argued that the finding of the learned single judge that group a had abandoned ..... h.s. bedi, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court dated 14.3.2003 whereby the writ petition challenging the order of the company law board .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2004 (HC)

Mehtab Kaur and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-22-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR649

..... instance no. 3 aforesaid.7. mr. m.l. sarin, learned senior counsel representing the appellants, informs us that against the judgment recorded in rfa no. 1612 of 1982, a letters patent appeal was filed and division bench of this court determined, the market value of the entire land at the rate of rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. however, in slp ..... 15% per annum for the period subsequent thereto till the date of payment of the amount of compensation to them. still dis-satisfied, the land-owners have filed present letters patent appeals for further enhancement of market value as assessed by learned single judge vide judgment dated 30.3.1987.5. during the course of trial, the claimants relied upon number ..... v.k. bali, j.1. by this common order, we propose to dispose of 11 connected letters patent appeal bearing nos. 331 to 337, 355, 406 and 407 of 1987 and 541 of 1993 as all these matters arise from the common impugned judgment passed by learned single .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2004 (HC)

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Puda) and anr. Vs. Ji ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-04-2004

Reported in : AIR2004P& H370; (2004)138PLR346

..... his submission and reaffirm the order dated 9th april, 2002. cm stands disposed of.' this order was passed on may 31, 2002 and it is, thereafter, that the present letters patent appeal was filed.6. we have heard arguments on merits of the case by taking into consideration all averments made in the written-statement and on the basis thereof, the ..... case we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants as noted above. it is significant to mention that before filing the letters patent appeal, an application for review was filed before the learned single judge, wherein a separate application was filed seeking permission to place on record written-statement as well. order passed ..... held on august 1, 1995.4. on the facts as have been stated above, the learned single judge allowed the writ petition in the manner indicated above. in the letters patent appeal that has been filed, it has been primarily contended that on account of some communication gap between the appellants and their counsel, written-statement could not be filed. the ..... yard from the petitioner for the plot, which had been earmarked for him. the judgment of the learned single judge has since been challenged under clause x of the letters patent by filing the present appeal.3. brief facts culminating into passing of the impugned order that constrained the petitioner to file present petition under article 226 of the constitution of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 2004 (HC)

Zile Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-06-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR746

..... question.finding no merit in the appeal, we need not go into the question of delay in filing/refiling the appeal.dismissed.'concededly, against the orders passed by the letters patent bench, as reproduced above, union of india filed special leave petition, which has been dismissed.7. the claimants/appellants, with a view to have more compensation had before the reference ..... /- per acre, whereas banjar kadim and tibba lands were assessed at rs. 23,250/- per acre.5. the claimants are still not satisfied and have, thus, filed the present letters patent appeals, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. 6. before we proceed any further, we would like to mention that aggrieved with the order passed by learned single judge for enhancement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2004 (HC)

Raj Kaur and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-17-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR114

..... be based upon evidence, was raised either before learned trial court or, for that matter, learned single judge, who decided the regular first appeal giving rise to the present letters patent appeal. so much so, no issue was claimed on severance and compensation payable on that count. the contention with regard to determination of compensation and payment thereof on account of ..... , 1988 has further enhanced market value of the acquired land at the rate of rs. 50,000/- per acre. the claimants are still not satisfied and have filed these letter patent appeals.3. the only contention that has been raised before us is that the land is located in developed area and has a potential for residential and commercial sites and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2004 (HC)

Bant Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-19-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR136

..... (lpa 946 to 952 of 1996, lpa no. 1165 of 1996, lpa no. 550 to 552 of 1997) filed under clause x of letters patent against the judgment of the learned single judge dated march 12, 1986.2. these cases relate to acquisition of about 40 acres of land in neelpur and saidkheri tehsil rajpura .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2004 (HC)

Niranjan Singh Vs. Om Suta and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-23-2004

Reported in : 2005ACJ548; (2004)137PLR505

orderv.k. bali, j.1. this appeal under clause x of the letters patent has been filed against judgment dated december 17, 1998 passed by the learned single judge in f.a.o. no. 269 of 1994, whereby order passed by the motor accidents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2004 (HC)

Punjab Urban Development Authority and ors. Vs. Dashmesh Educational S ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-12-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR238

..... law no. (ii) raised in the present appeals read with additional question of law no. (iii), learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the courts below have committed a patent error of law in deciding this issue by adopting a total casual approach and in complete disregard to the statutory and mandatory provisions of the forest law as interpreted by ..... of the site plan of the proposed forest hill country club resort which were submitted vide letter ex.p5'. it is thus apparent that the courts below have committed a patent error in placing reliance upon ex.p3/a and to hold as if the plaintiff society had actually applied in the prescribed form under section 5 read with section 6 ..... view that where the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts are based upon surmises and conjecturers, and/or perverse not based upon legally acceptable evidence or which are patently contrary to the settled law and/or such findings stand vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions, the high court is well within its jurisdiction to deal ..... , the issue raised are serious or concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based on surmise and conjecture arc perverse findings not based on legally acceptable evidence and/or patently contrary to the law declared by the apex court, the powers of the high court to interfere in such findings of facts even in second appeal is not hampered by .....

Tag this Judgment!


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