Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: chennai Year: 1958 Page 4 of about 34 results (0.027 seconds)

Dec 03 1958 (HC)

K. Parthasarathy Vs. C. Nataraja Odayar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-03-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad156; (1959)1MLJ11

..... take in not only the caste of adi-dravida but also several other castes mentioned in the president's notification under article 341 of the constitution. there is, therefore, a patent defect in the declaration made by the appellant in his nomination paper. the only question is whether the defect is so such substantial that in law the nomination paper should .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1958 (HC)

R.T. Perumal Vs. John DeavIn and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-24-1958

Reported in : AIR1960Mad43; [1960]30CompCas340(Mad)

..... this view it is not necessary to consider the other contention of mr. gopalaswami iyengar that section 39 of the act would have no application to an appeal under letters patent as it deals only with appeals from one court to another. we hold that the appeals are competent.11. on the merits the only question which arises is whether balakrishna .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1958 (HC)

R.T. Perumal Vs. John DeavIn and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-24-1958

Reported in : (1960)1MLJ199

..... this view it is not necessary to consider the other contention of mr. gopalaswami iyengar that section 39 of the act would have no application to an appeal under letters patent as it deals only with appeals from one court to another. we hold that the appeals are competent.11. on the merits the only question which arises is whether balakrishna .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1958 (HC)

The Public Prosecutor Vs. S. Joseph

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-12-1958

Reported in : (1960)1MLJ334

..... . wording of sheo swarup reiterated. high court is not justified in an appeal against acquittal in brushing aside the view taken by the trial court which is by no means patently absurd or unreasonable because as a result of labo- rious process o reasoning, it is pos- sible to take a different view on the evidence.atley v. state of u .....

Tag this Judgment!


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