Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: rajasthan Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 19 results (0.007 seconds)

Feb 01 1980 (HC)

Mohan Raj Vs. the Assistant Commissioner

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-01-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)255

..... have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. it appears that the impugned orders for staying the construction. which was being under taken by the petitioner are patently without jurisdiction under the provisions of the rajasthan public trusts act, the assistant devasthan commissioner is not empowered to pass any such orders. the dispute essentially is in the nature ..... , to take cognizance of this dispute, which was purely of a civil nature and either adjudicate or to pass a stay order. it was submitted that the impugned orders were patently without jurisdiction, and without any authority under any law.4. mr. v.n. modi, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 fairly and frankly submitted that though he has ..... application praying that the orders of non-petitioner no. 1 dated 11-1-74 and 1-2-74 and notice dated 11-1 74 should be quashed as they were patently without jurisdiction.3 mr. parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assistant commissioner of devasthan, whose powers were being exercised by sdo had no jurisdiction in any law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1980 (HC)

Motiyan and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-24-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Raj284

..... fathers of the constitution never left any doubt about the weight to be given to the pronouncement of the supreme court. article 141 was enacted precisely for making this position patent and clear that the law laid down by the supreme court would be law of the land. article 141 reads as under: '141. law declared by supreme court to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1980 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-07-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN447

..... preventive stringent legislation.8. the provision regarding anticipatory bail under section 438 cr. p.c. were intended for use very sparingly in the exceptional cases, where mala fide design is patent and not even latent. such provisions cannot be used for circumventing normal procedure of arrest and investigation after arrest. unless the accused shows that he has strong case where arrest .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1980 (HC)

Sher Khan Vs. Bambhu and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-22-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN465

..... any matter, is arising under the act, a remedy by way of appeal or otherwise is provided, then the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. therefore, it is so patent in the facts and circumstances of this case that the order of the assistant collector dated 22.4.75 was an appealable order and the appeal was filed and, therefore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1980 (HC)

Shiv Bus Service Vs. the Rta Jodhpur and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-25-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN403

..... temporary permits. the argument relating to the alternative remedy of revision was also raised. in that learned judge observed that it could not be disputed that if an order is patently without jurisdiction, the bar of alternative remedy will not stand in the way of giving relief to the petitioner and be held that case to be a case of complete .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1980 (HC)

Manager, Podar Spinning Mills Vs. the Labour Court of Rajasthan and an ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-25-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN115

..... court could not interfere unless and until it reached the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer were the result of victimization or unfair labour practice or patently illegal or without any evidence on record and the acceptance of the writ petition would save a lot of trouble to the either party because even after the final decision ..... the final order was passed.6. learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the finding of the labour court regarding the invalidity of the service of the notice was patently illegal and perverse, and it would be in the interest of justice to reverse the impugned finding so that the petitioner might be able to press before the labour court ..... the management has challenged the verdict of the labour court through this writ petition.4. the contention of the management is that the impugned order of the labour court is patently illegal and perverse. it had no jurisdiction to disregard the admissible evidence. it could not have conferred jurisdiction on itself to record evidence for deciding the point of jurisdiction. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1980 (HC)

Radhey Shyam Vs. Sita Ram

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Raj105; 1980()WLN533

..... that 'an adjudication on an application, which is nothing more than a step towards obtaining a final adjudication in the suit, is not a judgment within the meaning of 'letters patent.' 9. bapna, j., then considered the facts of the case before them and observed as under:'the observations of their lordships of the supreme court in asrumati debi v. kumar ..... under:'the crucial word which calls for interpretation is the word 'judgment' employed in section 18 (1). the word 'judgment' also occurs in clauses 15 and 39 of the letters patent of the madras high court which received a close and careful consideration of the five learned judges of that court in southern roadways (p) ltd. v. p. mathurai veera-swami .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1980 (HC)

Jagdish Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN1

..... and ors. 1976 wln 174 held:the result of setting aside the appellate order of the tribunal would lead to the restoration of the order of the rta which is patently erroneous. i, therefore, think it proper in the circumstances of the present case, to decline to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1980 (HC)

Satya Narayan Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-21-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN571

..... assumed that the petitioner was a dislodged operator as argued by mr. maheshwari, the difference between the two terms in the 'permit procurement race of the bus operators is patent and not latent. the question whether the word 'displaced' was used bonafide by mistake, without intention of making it the triump-card for obtaining permit cannot be adjudicated by this ..... ' is not in dispute. again, the fact that one of the grounds for granting permit to the petitioner by the r.t.a. that he was 'displaced operator' is equally patent on record. the finding of the s.t.a.t. that satyanarayan was not a displaced operator is also correct and cannot be seriously disputed.5. even if it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1980 (HC)

The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Bhanwarlal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-20-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)44

..... been held that a new plea cannot be entertained in the writ proceedings in that case the question of ratification was not urged before the board of revenue. the letters patent bench observed that the learned single judge should not have aken into consideration a contention that had not been taken before the board of revenue and therefore the appellate bench .....

Tag this Judgment!


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