Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: chennai Year: 1934 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.035 seconds)

Nov 05 1934 (PC)

King-emperor Vs. Ramanuja Aiyangar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-05-1934

Reported in : (1935)68MLJ1

..... of their admissibility. the matter is brought to my attention by a certificate granted by the learned advocate-general under clause 26 of the letters patent of this high court on being moved by the prisoner raising the question of the admissibility in evidence of these answers stating that in his ..... may straightaway be dismissed without any further consideration of the merits of the case. having regard to the terms of clause 26 of the letters patent, no other conclusion is possible. if this conclusion is sound in law, the question whether the advocate-general's certificate is competent should be ..... on which alone they could be considered by us. our powers are circumscribed, for we can only act in conformity with clause 26 of the letters patent. if there was no misdirection or other error as certified, the certificate was misconceived, and we have no power to interfere'. in the same case ..... law which require further consideration in the judgment of the advocate-general.35. it will be observed that under clause 26 of the letters patent a certificate to review a decision by the high court exercising original criminal jurisdiction can be granted by the advocate-general if in his judgment ..... a full bench of seven judges was formed to consider this preliminary objection of the learned crown prosecutor.5. the relevant clauses of the amended letters patent are clauses 25, 26 and 41. the marginal note of clause 25 reads 'no appeal from high court exercising original jurisdiction - court may reserve .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1934 (PC)

(Kanneganti) Ramamanemma Vs. (Kanneganti) Basavayya

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-12-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad558

..... . ganga prasad (1908) 80 all. 831 and ram kishan das v. jaikishan (1911) 33 all. 647. in devate sri ramamurti v. venkata sitaramachandra rao 1914 mad. 382, in a letters patent appeal against the order of sankaran nair, j., passed in revision, the allahabad view was generally followed but in our high court this rule is not regarded as absolute as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1934 (PC)

Dara Sivarao Vs. Kola Subbarao

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-16-1934

Reported in : (1934)66MLJ563

sundaram chetty, j.1. this is a letters patent appeal against the judgment of our learned brother jackson, j. the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who is the assignee of a mortgage held by ..... within the purview of section 115 of the evidence act, and therefore, the plaintiff as the representative of the 4th defendant is equally estopped.3. in the result, this letters patent appeal is dismissed with costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1934 (PC)

Nagalingam Pillai Vs. Alagia Manavalam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-16-1934

Reported in : 156Ind.Cas.226

beasley, c.j.1. this is a letters patent appeal from an order of lakshmana rao, j. holding that the board of revenue had jurisdiction to decide whether or not act ii of 1929 is applicable to the case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 26 1934 (PC)

Dara Sivarao Vs. Kola Subbarao

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-26-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad302

sundaram chetty, j.1. this is a letters patent appeal against the judgment of our learned brother jackson, j. the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who is the assignee of a mortgage held by ..... estoppel is one coming within the purview of section 115, evidence act, and therefore the plaintiff as the representative of defendant 4 is equally estopped. in the result, this letters patent appeal is dismissed with costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 26 1934 (PC)

Ponnuswami Goundan and anr. Vs. Kalyanasundara Ayyar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-26-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad365; (1934)66MLJ712

..... limit the kind of evidence required. it clearly only requires proof by admissible evidence.' for these reasons, our learned brother's judgment in second appeal was right and this letters patent appeal must be dismissed with costs.butler, j.4. i agree.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1934 (PC)

(Revinipati) Appala Raju and ors. Vs. Gandreddi Naganna and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-08-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad583; 153Ind.Cas.16

1. the question for determination is whether when the appellant's vendor and respondent (defendant)' had agreed in writing in december 1912 that the vendor would re-deliver certain property to respondent for which respondent had paid the purchase money, ex. 7, the respondent can set up that contract against the appellants' subsequent vendee in a suit for ejectment. when this question came before anantakrishna iyyar, j., all the courts in india were following the equitable doctrine of part performance which has since been held not to apply to india in ariff v. jadunath majumdar 1931 p.c. 79. it is no longer argued that in the light of that judgment the judgment under appeal can be sustained, but it is urged that, as in-deed is set forth on p. 1246 of the privy council judgment, if a party has an effective contract which he can register and use as a bar to ejectment he will be given the relief set forth in walsh v. lanadale (1882) 21 ch.d. 9.2. that argument might be available to respondent except for the fact that his contract to re-deliver is now time barred under article 113, lim. act. it was argued that plaintiff's vendor having given respondent a stamp paper after time had run, revived the contract, but we find no authority for that plea either in the statute or the case law. the decree of the subordinate judge accordingly is restored and the appeal allowed with costs in this letters patent appeal. each party to pay his costs in second appeal.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1934 (PC)

T.S. Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs. A.M. Ahmed Miran Sahib and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-13-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad357; 150Ind.Cas.911; (1934)66MLJ601

..... which was sure to be declared to be void. i think he had wisely refrained from standing for the election and had been induced to do so by the very patent irregularity of the proceedings of 30th march 1933. hence i find that the election itself has been affected and it must naturally be held that the result of the election .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1934 (PC)

(Srimathu) Muthu Vijiaraghunatha Duraisingam Vs. Venkatachalam Chettia ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad551

..... rent suit by the revenue court (s.s. no. 91/21 r.d.o. devakottah) between plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 and this constituted res judicata. hence the letters patent appeal.2. under section 189(3), madras estates land act, the decision of a revenue court on a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction shall be binding in any civil suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1934 (PC)

Rajah of Sivaganga Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1934

Reported in : 152Ind.Cas.246

..... a rent suit by the revenue court (sections 91/21 r.d.o. devakottah) between plaintiffs and defendants nos. 2-5 and this constituted res judicata.3. hence the lelters patent appeal.4. under section 189(3), madras estates land act the decision of a revenue court on a matter within its exclusive jurisdiction shall be binding in any civil suit .....

Tag this Judgment!


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