Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: rajasthan Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 30 results (0.010 seconds)

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhagan Lal Joshi and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-18-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR272]; 2005(4)WLC786

..... a jurisdiction fact.12. from perusing the judgment and award dtd. 14.2.2003 annex. 5 passed by the learned labour court, bhilwara it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned labour court are perverse. therefore the same do not require ..... the constitution of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. while exercising the powers under article 227 of the constitution of india, the high court does not act as court of appeal.11. the high court's power of ..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the labour court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. the findings of facts recorded by the labour court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity....10. apart from that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2005 (HC)

Rajendra Kumar Soni Vs. Authority Appointed and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-04-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj787; 2006(1)WLC734

..... definition of 'employee' given out in section 2(5) of the act of 1958, would be outside the purview of shops and commercial establishment act of 1958. it is thus patently clear that the respondent-anil steel and industries which was admittedly registered under the factories act, would be governed under the factories act of 1948 and the appellant who was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2005 (HC)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Charan Singh a ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-07-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2293; 2005(4)WLC98

..... 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.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!

Mar 14 2005 (HC)

Sawa Ram Vs. the Municipal Board and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-14-2005

Reported in : [2005(105)FLR956]; RLW2005(2)Raj1157

..... a jurisdictional fact.16. from perusing the judgment and award dtd. 18.5.2004 (annex.p/1) passed by the learned labour court, it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned labour court are perverse.17. thus, the judgment and award ..... the constitution of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. while exercising the powers under article 227 of the constitution of india, the high court does not act as court of appeal.15. the high court's power of ..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the labour court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. the findings of facts recorded by the labour court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity,14. apart from that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2005 (HC)

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-17-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2761; 2005(3)WLC508

..... mentioned above, the, findings of facts recorded by the learned labour court are not based on correct appreciation of entire material available on record and the same are erroneous, perverse, patently unreasonable and based on no material or evidence on record. there is an error apparent on the face of the record. therefore, the findings of the learned tribunal suffer from ..... 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.64. since as observed hereinabove, the findings recorded by the learned labour court suffer from an error apparent on the face on record and are perverse and ..... patently unreasonable, therefore, the same are not sustainable.65. for the reasons mentioned above, the instant case writ petition is allowed and the judgment and award dtd. 2.8.2001 annex. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2005 (HC)

Assistant Engineer (the) and anr. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-19-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)WLC16

..... jurisdiction fact.19. from perusing the judgment and award dtd. 13.5.2005 (annex. 3) passed by the learned labour court, sri ganganagar it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned labour court are perverse. therefore the same does not require ..... the constitution of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. while exercising the powers under article 227 of the constitution of india, the high court does not act as court of appeal.18. the high court's power of ..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the labour court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. the findings of facts recorded by the labour court do not duffer from any basic illegality or infirmity.17. apart from that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2005 (HC)

Ramesh Chand Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-24-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Raj208; RLW2005(2)Raj1073; 2005(2)WLC305

..... beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or resulting in manifest injustice.5. in surya dev rai v. ramchandra rai and ors ..... , held that the appeal filed against the order of the single judge to the division bench was rightly dismissed as being not maintainable because under clause 15 of the letters patent an intra-court appeal against the decision of the single judge exercising jurisdiction under article 227 is barred.15. the principle laid down in the case of umaji keshao meshram ..... umaji keshao meshram.16. in lokmat news papers v. shankar prasad, (1999)6 scc 275, the apex court held that if a single judge exercise jurisdiction under article 226, letters patent appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under article 227 it will not be maintainable.17. division bench of rajasthan high court in anandi lal v. state ..... gives ancillary directions which may pertain to article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226.conclusion28. as we have earlier noticed that the apex court in baby v. travancore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2005 (HC)

Ramesh Chand Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-24-2005

Reported in : [2005]147TAXMAN61(Raj)

..... gives ancillary directions which may pertain to article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent where the substantial port of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226.conclusion:28. as we have earlier noticed that the apex court in baby v ..... is umaji keshao meshram.16. in lokmat newspapers v. shankar prasad (1999) 6 scc 275, the apex court held that if a single judge exercise jurisdiction under article 226, letters patent appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under article 227 it will not be maintainable.17. division bench of rajasthan high court in anandi lal v. state ..... , held that the appeal filed against the order of the single judge to the division bench was rightly dismissed as being not maintainable because under clause 15 of the letters patent and intra-court appeal against the decision of the single judge exercising jurisdiction under article 227 is barred.15. the principle laid down in the case of umaji keshao meshram ..... beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or resulting in manifest injustice.5. in surya dev rai v. ramchander rai (2003) 6 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (HC)

i.R. Trivedi Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2590; 2005(4)WLC119

..... will not liable to be considered for any purpose as if a favour is conferred on the petitioner, suffers not only from vice of arbitrariness and unfairness but results in patent breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under article 14 and 16 of the constitution which cannot be sustained.30. it appears that some sort of bias for polytechnic ..... to equal emoluments and equal status as a director as of right on the jejune ground that he comes from iti wing and not from the polytechnic colleges suffers from patent and gross violation of right to equality guaranteed under the provisions of article 14 and right of equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment guaranteed under article 16 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (HC)

Ugam Raj Vs. Civil Judge (Sd) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj517

..... , as such the plaintiff was interested to be continue with suit and to get it disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1950. the court below patently misread the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the act of 2001 while reaching at the conclusion that the act of 1950 stood repealed, the act of ..... act of 2001 with liberty to file fresh proceedings under the act of 2001, as such finding given by the court below, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is patently erroneous and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.6. no reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondents plaintiff. however, a preliminary objection is raised to the effect that ..... given for issue in question is that the court below misread the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the act of 2001, and, therefore, committed an error patent while holding that the suit in hand is required to be decided in accordance with the provisions of transfer of property act only. it is contended by the counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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