Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: supreme court of india Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 109 results (0.273 seconds)

May 20 2002 (SC)

P.V. Hemalatha Vs. Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-20-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC2445; 2002(5)ALT19(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1626; [2002(3)JCR34(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC494; 2002(2)KLT792(SC); 2002(4)SCALE662; (2002)5SCC548; [2002]3SCR1098

..... compensation commission, namely the entitlement 'to enter upon the enquiry in question'. the learned counsel, therefore, submitted that if clause 36 of the letters patent of madras high court was attracted to erstwhile malabar state now forming new state of kerala, from where the cases emanated, the differences of opinion ..... in section 52 preceded by such words 'original and appellate' is an expression of wide import and would, therefore, include clause 36 of letters patent of madras high court which governs subject matter of power and jurisdiction of one or more judges of that high court in the event of ..... the above view and confirming the decree of the subordinate court committed a grievous mistake of law in holding that clause 36 of the letters patent did not cover a situation like the one before them. it is argued that even though the two judges have delivered separate judgments, ..... attract the application of the proviso thereto'.10. the other question that was considered by the division bench is whether there is any letters patent applicable to high court of kerala which indicates a different procedure for resolving difference of opinion expressed by them in their two separate judgments. ..... under the jurisdiction of the high court of judicature, madras and in these appeals, the provision that has to be looked for is the letters patent for the high court of judicature, madras. therein, again, there is no provision corresponding to section 23 of the travancore-cochin high court act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2002 (SC)

Ganesh Trivedi Vs. Sundar Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-11-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC676; 2002(4)AWC2714(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC38; 2002(1)SCALE199; (2002)2SCC329; [2002]1SCR189; 2002(2)LC974(SC)

..... tenant.xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx(g) 'family', in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her-(i) spouse,(ii) male lineal descendants,(iii) such patents, grandparents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her,and includes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2002 (SC)

Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-13-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC1357; 2002(1)ARBLR768(SC); 2002(50)BLJR768; [2002(2)JCR97(SC)]; JT2002(3)SC43; (2002)2MLJ186(SC); 2002(2)SCALE594; (2002)3SCC705; [2002]2SCR404

..... toharmoniously construe the provisions.15. we, therefore, hold that under section 54 of the said act there isno bar to the maintainability of a letters patent appeal. we therefore agree with the view taken in basant kumar's case. the reference isanswered accordingly.16. the case be now placed before a ..... court isestablished. the powers given to a high court under the letterspatent are akin to the constitution powers of a high court. thuswhen a letters patent grants to the high court a power of appeal,against a judgment of a single judge, the right to entertain the appealwould not get excluded ..... 39 ofthe act will be heard by a single judge. any judgmentmade by the single judge in the said appeal will, under clause10 of the letters patent, be subject to an appeal to thatcourt. if the order made by a single judge is a judgmentand if the appropriate legislature has, expressly or ..... heard learned counsel for the parties.on a plain reading of section 54 of the landacquisition act, we are, prima facie, of the view that noletters patent appeal is maintainable. however, since noreason has been assigned in the case of basant kumarv. union of india (supra) for holding that the letterspaten appeal ..... nos. 1663-1968of 1982 (baljit singh and ors. etc. v. state ofharyana and ors.), a bench of two judges of this courtheld that no letters patent appeal is maintainable againstthe judgment of the learned single judge of the high courtwhereas in the case of basant kumar v. union of india : (1996)11scc542 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2002 (SC)

M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadi Vs. Indian Coffee Workers' Co-operativ ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-23-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC3055; JT2002(6)SC290; 2002(6)SCALE89; (2002)9SCC204

..... appellants claimed that the 7153 sq. ft., directed to be given to the 1st respondent, was out of the land allotted to them by the state government. both the letters patent appeals came to be dismissed by the common judgment dated 3th march, 2000.9. mr. sushil kumar jain submitted that the high court could not have directed the state government ..... august 1999. the state government field l.p.a. no. 283 of 1999 against the orders dated 16th april, 1999 and 5th august, 1994.8. the appellant also filed letters patent appeal no. 466 of 1999 against the orders dated 16th april, 1999 and 5th august, 1999. the appellants claimed that they were not parties to the writ petition filed by ..... variava, j.1. leave granted.2. heard parties.3. these appeals are against an order dated 8th march 2002 by which letters patent appeals field by the appellant have been dismissed.4. briefly stated the facts are as follows:on 14th of may, 1985, the appellant was sanctioned a lease of an area .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2002 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Aradhana Trading Co. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-01-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; [2002]2SCR847

..... other appellate jurisdiction and when such jurisdiction is exercised by a single judge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent there being nothing to the contrary in the trade marks act' 15. in view of what has been held above a court while exercising ..... it exercises its other appellate jurisdiction and where such jurisdiction was exercised by a single judge, his judgment was appealable under clause 15 of the letters patent. the court relied upon (1913) a.c. 546 quoting therefrom 'when a question is stated to be referred to established court without more ordinary ..... the purpose that restriction on appeal under section 39 of arbitration act shall be applicable to appeals under any provision of law, may be cpc or letters patent. 11. so far the appellants are concerned they placed reliance on a case reported in : [1953]4scr1028 : [1953]4scr1028 national sewing thread company limited ..... order passed by the single judge appointing a new arbitrator since the order was not covered under any of the clauses of section 39 nor even letters patent appeal was held to be maintainable. in union of india vs mohindra supply company : [1962]3scr497 : [1962]3scr497 , a decision by a bench ..... order passed in appeal under section 39 of the arbitration act. in the alternate, the appellants' contention is that in any case a letters patent appeal would lie against the original orders of the single judge of the high court to a division bench. a number of decisions have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2002 (SC)

Zorawar Singh and anr. Vs. Sarwan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-04-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC1711; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN65; JT2002(Suppl1)SC561; (2002)2PLR580; RLW2002(2)SC335; 2002(3)SCALE280; (2002)4SCC460

..... the sub-registrar just before execution of sale deed is not made out. there was no good reason to upset the findings in the letters patent appeal as recorded by the learned single judge in the first appeal.14. in the result, we allow the appeal set aside the order passed ..... the mater is thus again before this court impugning in the judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the division bench in the letters patent appeal after remand.6. the division bench of the high court has reproduced in its judgment the issues, which were framed by the trial court. ..... contentions of the parties remanded the matter for fresh disposal by the division bench. the division bench hearing the case after remand allowed the letters patent appeal setting aside the order passed by the learned single judge in the first appeal restoring the decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit ..... performance of contract. a decree for refund of the earnest amount was though passed in favour of plaintiff sarwan singh. sarwan singh however, preferred letters patent appeal no.335 of 1983, which was dismissed on 4.3.1991. the special leave petition was filed by sarwan singh in the supreme court, ..... this appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the division bench of punjab and haryana high court, allowing the letters patent appeal no.335 of 1983 preferred by the plaintiff, sarwan singh, who since dead, is represented by his legal representatives respondents no.1/ (i)(ii), ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2002 (SC)

Devender Pal Singh Vs. State, N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

Reported in : AIR2003SC886; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)738; 95(2003)CLT708(SC); 2003CriLJ918; JT2002(10)SC377; (2003)2SCC501; [2002]SUPP5SCR332; 2003(1)LC259(SC)

..... proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be reconsidered except where glaring omission or patent mistake or like error hascrept in earlier.19. a judgment of the final court of the country is final, and a review of such judgment is an exception.20. in ..... or results in miscarriage of justice. a review of judgment in a case is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility..... the stage of review is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the ..... cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be reconsidered except 'where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility':sow chandra kante v. sk. habib 1975 (1) sc 674 54. article 137 empowers this court to review .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2002 (SC)

Madan Lal Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-01-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC79(SC); (2003)1CALLT61(SC); JT2002(8)SC219; (2002)9SCC473a; (2003)1UPLBEC173

..... for the lands in question. still not satisfied, the appellants herein pursued the matter, on further appeal, before the division bench of the high court invoking the powers of letters patent. the learned judges of the division bench concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge and rejected the appeals on the view that no interference was called ..... discretion and the manner of appreciation of evidence in the matter of determining the market value, unless the approach of the courts below and reasons assigned are found to be patently illegal, against settled principles or perverse or that the valuation was so unreasonably low as to warrant an interference in our hands or that it was not based on any ..... given by the learned single judge on the basis of relevant evidence which also found favour of acceptance at the hands of the division bench, we do no find any patent error of law or unreasonableness in the determination made by the high court in these cases, justifying our interference in the matter.7. for all the above reasons, we see .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 2002 (SC)

Rajender Kumar and ors. Vs. Rambhai and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-18-2002

Reported in : 2002ACJ1822; AIR2003SC2095; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)1206; 2002(3)BLJR2484; JT2002(Suppl1)SC549; RLW2003(1)SC139; 2002(5)WLN785

..... determined the compensation at rs. 96,000/ - with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. still not satisfied with the amount awarded the appellants preferred letters patent appeal no. 176 of 1999, which was decided by the division bench vide the judgment dated 9.8.1999. the division bench further enhanced the compensation amount to rs. 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2002 (SC)

State of Haryana and anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-10-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC2589; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)932; 2002(3)AWC2477(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1688; [2002(94)FLR851]; JT2002(5)SC189; 2002LabIC2630; RLW2003(1)SC3; 2002(5)SCALE138; (2002)6SCC72; [200

..... against such administrative decision taken by the government. the courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the government is patently irrational unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter ..... court has ignored the settled principles of law in a claim relating to parity of pay and fixation of revised scale of pay, the judgment of the high court is patently erroneous and should be set aside. 7. on the other hand, shri anup g. choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent supporting the judgment urged that in the context .....

Tag this Judgment!


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