Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 8 of about 108 results (0.097 seconds)

Apr 05 2004 (SC)

Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2036; JT2004(4)SC264; 2004(4)SCALE201; (2004)6SCC331

..... before the patna high court which was marked as cwjc no. 5004/2002. by an order dated 7.10.2002, the said writ petition was allowed where against a letters patent appeal was filed by the appellant herein which was dismissed by a division bench of the high court. hence this appeal by special leave.submissions:5. mr. amarendra sharan, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

Hira Tikkoo Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3648; JT2004(5)SC231; 2004(4)SCALE468; (2004)6SCC765

..... 161 consentees gave their affidavits. some of the non-consentees again approached the high court challenging the new industrial policy of 1990 by filing fresh petitions and others filed letters patent appeals. in their petitions and appeals, they insisted on grant of relief of directing delivery of possession of the original plots allotted to them. the filing of this petition and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3690; 2004CriLJ3118; JT2004(Suppl1)SC186; 2004(4)SCALE577; (2004)10SCC616

..... to the inevitable conclusion that the accused was responsible for the rape and murder of the victim. though the judgment under challenge is one of acquittal, in view of the patently perverse conclusions arrived at by the high court, the same is indefensible and is set aside. the conviction as recorded by the trial court and the sentences imposed are restored .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2004 (SC)

The State of Kerala Etc. Etc. Vs. Arya Refrigeration and a/C Co. Etc. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-03-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3938; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)940; 2004(2)ARBLR556(SC); 2004(3)AWC2581(SC); 98(2004)CLT694(SC); 2004(3)KLT516(SC); 2004(6)SCALE429; (2004)7SCC546; [2004]54SCL579(SC)

..... interference with the reasoned award is extremely limited. nothing has been shown to show that the arbitrator overlooked any relevant piece of material or that the award suffered from any patent illegality.7. though there was some dispute about the applicability of the act in view of the accepted position at all stages that the act applied to the proceedings, such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2004 (SC)

Balvant N. Viswamitra and ors. Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC4377; 2004(3)AWC2689(SC); 2005(2)BomCR259; JT2004(6)SC403; 2004(6)SCALE636; (2004)8SCC706; 2004(2)LC1440(SC)

..... jurisdiction which it did not have; a mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction does not result in a nullity. the lack of jurisdiction in the court passing the decree must be patent on its lace in order to enable the executing court to take cognizance of such a nullity based on want of jurisdiction, else the normal rule that an executing court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2004 (SC)

U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shakti Bhatta Udyog ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-19-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC4388; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1197; 2004(4)AWC2891(SC); JT2004(6)SC553; RLW2004(4)SC486; 2004(7)SCALE50; (2004)8SCC70; (2004)3UPLBEC2717

..... 28, 1971, in respect of land, which was away from the land in question and which had pits of 10 ft. deep, cannot be upheld.in this regard, one more patent error, committed by the reference court, is apparent. the reference court observed that 'this is noteworthy that there is no highway near this land. during the course of arguments, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2004 (SC)

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-16-2004

Reported in : JT2004(8)SC355; 2004(7)SCALE684

..... are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case. (see surendra paswan v. state of jharkhand : (2003)12scc360 .12. the trial court's conclusions were patently based on surmises and conjectures and were contrary to the evidence. there was no basis for the trial court to conclude that accused-appellant anil kumar acted in exercise of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2004 (SC)

Siri Ram Batra and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Delhi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-17-2004

Reported in : 113(2004)DLT891(SC); JT2004(8)SC36; (2005)140PLR545; 2004(7)SCALE712; (2004)12SCC52

..... high court by a detailed and well- considered order did not find any merit in the writ petition. consequently the writ petition was dismissed. thereafter, the appellants filed the letters patent appeal no. 468 of 1999 before the division bench of the high court. by the impugned judgment the division bench of the high court, agreeing with the findings recorded by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2004 (SC)

J.P. Srivastava and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-26-2004

Reported in : AIR2005SC83; I(2005)BC142; (2005)2CALLT31(SC); [2004]122CompCas696(SC); (2004)4CompLJ467(SC); 2004(9)SCALE60; (2005)1SCC172; [2004]56SCL1(SC)

..... acts of oppression in respect and mismanagement of the company. consequently, a second petition was filed under sections 397 and 398 of the act by the appellants.15. a letters patent appeal was filed from the decision of the single judge before the division bench by the appellants. the division bench held that the filing of the consent along with application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 2004 (SC)

Dharma Prathishthanam Vs. Madhok Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-02-2004

Reported in : AIR2005SC214; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)114; 2004(3)BLJR2295; 2004(5)CTC442; JT2004(9)SC335; (2005)1MLJ70(SC); RLW2005(1)SC151; 2004(9)SCALE205; (2005)9SCC686

..... period of limitation if the court finds that the award is void or directs a party to do an act which is prohibited by law or is without jurisdiction or patently illegal. we need not multiply the number of authorities on this point as an exhaustive and illuminating conspectus of judicial opinion is found to be contained in law of arbitration .....

Tag this Judgment!


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