Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: rajasthan Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 33 results (0.008 seconds)

Mar 12 2004 (HC)

Smt. Shanti Devi (Since Dead Represented by L.Rs.) and ors. Vs. Ram Na ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Raj232; 2004(3)WLC85

..... further because in our considered opinion the substantive law and procedural law overlap each other more often than not and the proposition of law laid down by us is so patent and well known that it requires no examples, illustrations and citation of decisions, any further. (sic)75. we are of the opinion that this notification is a complete code in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2004 (HC)

Dr. Babu Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-03-2004

Reported in : [2005(104)FLR1184]

..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the learned tribunal are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material or evidence. it also cannot be said that the learned tribunal committed any illegality in holding the transfer of the petitioner as valid and ..... of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings or order is clearly perverse or patently unreasonable.17. for the reasons mentioned above, no interference in called for with the impugned order dated 30.9.2004 (annexure 4) and the judgment dated 7.10.2004 (annexure .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (HC)

Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Raj229

..... india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior authority, court or tribunal, unless its finding or order is clearly perverse of patently unreasonable.9. it may be stated that high court's power under article 226/227 of the constitution of india should be exercised only when there is dereliction of duty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2004 (HC)

Dana Ram and ors. Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-27-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Raj307

..... of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its finding or order is clearly perverse or patently unreasonable.25. it may be stated that high court's power under article 226/227 of the constitution of india should be exercised only when there is dereliction of duty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2004 (HC)

Sushila Mehta Vs. Smt. Chandrakala and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-09-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1875; 2005(3)WLC393

..... of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its finding or order is clearly perverse of patently unreasonable.19. it may be stated that high court's power under article 226/227 of the constitution of india should be exercised only when there is dereliction of duty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2004 (HC)

Magna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-05-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2097; 2004(4)WLC347

..... by obtaining the decision of the court. the necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out repeatedly in the house of lords and privy council, without distinction between patent and latent defects. lord diplock spoke still more clearly, saying that: 'it leads to confusion to use such terms as 'voidable', 'voidable ab initio', 'void' or 'a nullity' as descriptive ..... of the status of subordinate legislation alleged to be ultra vires for patent or for latent defects, before its validity has been pronounced on by a court of competent jurisdiction.' 50. in view of the aforesaid discussion, i am not inclined to accept .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2004 (HC)

Tara Singh Gehlot Vs. Snehlata and ors. (Smt.)

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-09-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2571

..... . b.s. mahajan and ors. (supra), the hon'ble apex court held that the decision of the selection can be interfered with only on limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in constitution of committee or its procedure evaluation the selection or proved malafide affecting selection.18. in the matter of promotion, the candidate has a right of consideration ..... subject and that expertise is not with the court ((1990(1) scc 305). the decision of the selection committee can be interfered only on limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee of its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. and further submitted on the basis of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2004 (HC)

Rishab Rolling and Grading Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-11-2004

Reported in : (2008)11VST757(Raj)

..... is available to the aggrieved person.19. the existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for refusing prohibition or certiorari where-(a) the absence or excess of jurisdiction is patent and the application is made by the party aggrieved, or(b) there is an error apparent on the face of record,(c) there has been violation of the rules of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2004 (HC)

Kanti Lal Vs. Legal Representatives of Late Smt. Chand Kumari

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-07-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj1190; 2004(2)WLC26

..... reversing above findings, reversed the judgment of the trial court. after considering entire record, 1 have no hesitation in holding that the judgment of the first appellate court suffers from patent illegalities.26. further glaring illegality committed by the first appellate court is that the first appellate court accepted the oral evidence contradicting the documentary evidence. the plaintiff produced and proved .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2004 (HC)

Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-12-2004

Reported in : III(2004)ACC388; RLW2004(4)Raj2549; 2004(3)WLC358

..... here that the existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for refusing prohibition or certiorari in the following five exigencies where:-(i) the absence or excess of jurisdiction is patent and the application is made by the party aggrieved, or(ii) there is an error apparent on the face of the record,(iii) there has been a violation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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