Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: chennai Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 65 results (0.030 seconds)

Jul 14 2000 (HC)

Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Sara Lee Bakery

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-14-2000

Reported in : AIR2000Mad497

..... design and in the said proceedings, the applicant/plainliff took notice. thus, it is obvious that the designs of both the parties have been registered by the controller general of patents, designs and trademarks and both of them have initiated separate proceedings to cancel their respective design registration.18. it is the contention of the respondent through the counter-affidavit dated ..... on 1-4-1999 through the design registration certificate bearing no. 179167. thus, it is clear that both the parties have registered their respective designs before the controller general of patents and designs and trademarks.15. it is the contention of the applicant/ plaintiff that under section 51-a of the act. he filed an application for cancellation of the registration ..... gist of his submission is as follows :--'the applicant/plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the design bearing no. 171091 dated 11-4-1996 issued by the controller general of patents & designs and trademarks, the novelty being in the shape and configuration of the biscuit. by the grant of registration under section 47 of the designs act, the applicant would ..... . the sign of the respondent's biscuit ts entirely different from the applicant's biscuit. the differences arc easily perceivable even by young customers. in fact, the controller of patents and designs has already recognized this fact and has granted a design registration certificate on 1-4-1999 in respect of the respondent's biscuits. (d) the applicant's biscuits .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2000 (HC)

M/S Fast Cool Services by Partners and 2 Others Vs. P. Shanthakumari

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-03-2000

Reported in : 2000(3)CTC257; (2000)1MLJ506

..... not make difference. secondly, rent controller has exercised hisdiscretion and that discretion is not liable to be interfered with by the appellateauthority unless it is a case of perverseness or patent illegality. even if adifferent view is possible, the discretion exercised by subordinate authority isnot liable to be interfered with.10. as against the said contentions, learned counsel for respondent submitted ..... has to be condoned, merely because superior court can take a different view may not be sufficient to interfere with the discretion unless it is a case of perversity or patent illegality.27. appellate authority has relied on various decisions to hold as to what is 'sufficient cause' and how it has to be explained. rent controller once accepts the explanation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2000 (HC)

Management of Thanjavur Textiles Ltd. Vs. P.O., I Additional Labour Co ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-04-2000

Reported in : (2000)IILLJ1015Mad

..... the part of the management to the effect that all other workmen excepting the second respondent have caused the production to the extent fixed by the labour commissioner. it is patently seen from exs. w 3 and w4 pertaining to the year 1985-86 that for less production, deductions have been effected from the salary of each and every employee and ..... the exercise of power in ordering reinstatement without back wages as it has been done by the labour court is quite appropriate and fitting.22. in short, there is no patent error of law or perversity in approach much less in the exercise of discretion by the labour court under section 11-a of the industrial disputes act, so as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 2000 (HC)

Hotel Peacock Vs. Presiding Officer, I Additional City Civil Judge and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-14-2000

Reported in : [2000(86)FLR69]; (2000)IILLJ942Mad; (2000)IIMLJ141

..... passed by the e.i. court. while exercising the extraordinary justification under article 226 of the constitution of india, i am unable to see any serious infirmity or inconsistency or patent errors of law or perversity in approach insofar as passing of the impunged order by the first respondent is concerned.13. in result, the writ petition fails and the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2000 (HC)

K.S. Subramanian Vs. State and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-21-2000

Reported in : AIR2000Mad491

..... be considered to any extent.13. in short, the orders passed by the second and first respondents respectively are passed on sound reasons and i am unable to sue any patent error of law or perversity in approach so far as the orders passed rejecting the plea of the petitioner besides setting aside the order passed by the third respondent/district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2000 (HC)

P. Ravi Kumar Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-25-2000

Reported in : II(2000)ACC491; AIR2000Mad367; 2000(2)CTC151; (2000)IIMLJ358

..... for this court to cause its interference into the impugned notice issued by the respondent herein which is well in confirmity with law. 10. no other infirmity or inconsistency or patent errors of law or perversity in approach so far as the coming into being of the impugned notice of demand dated 4.1.1993 has been either shown or brought .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2000 (HC)

Solai Hall theatre Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-27-2000

Reported in : AIR2000Mad281

..... penalty imposed thereby confirming the orders passed by the appellate authority.9. so far as this court of judicial review is concerned, absolutely there is no infirmity or inconsistency or patent errors of law or perversity in approach in the passing of the orders impugned connecting to both the writ petitions above and the interference sought for quashing the said impugned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2000 (HC)

P. Soundarya Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-03-2000

Reported in : [2001]249ITR77(Mad)

..... son, retaining her life interest in the said property, declaring the sale consideration of the said property at rs. 2.40,000. the declaration made by the revision petitioner is patently false and the same has been made by the revision petitioner to use the same as genuine evidence in the proceeding before the income-tax authority, which is a judicial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2000 (HC)

P. Soundarya Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-03-2000

Reported in : (2001)168CTR(Mad)447; [2001]113TAXMAN534(Mad)

..... son, retaining her life interest in the said property, declaring the sale consideration of the said property at rs. 2,40,000. the declaration made by the revision petitioner is patently false and the same has been made by the revision petitioner to use the same as genuine evidence in the proceeding before the income-tax authority, which is a judicial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2000 (HC)

Gordon Woodroffe Workers and Staff Union Vs. Joint Commissioner of Lab ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-07-2000

Reported in : (2000)IILLJ1150Mad

..... were chosen to be sent home only during the pendency of the application. it was obvious that the description of the workers as 'juniormost workers' of the company was a patent lie. a most roundabout treatment has been given to this aspect in both the orders. the learned senior counsel merely suggested that those were the persons who have not even ..... treated as 'permanent workers' of the company. besides, the representation made by the company before the bifr that they were having experience of only two/three years was also a patent lie as most of them were working for more than five/six years prior to the presentation of the application before the bifr. :this would suggest a last nail in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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