Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: jammu and kashmir Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.042 seconds)

Feb 07 1980 (HC)

Mohinder Nath Vs. Sandhran Rani

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Feb-07-1980

Reported in : AIR1981J& K49

..... by the petitioner in his plaint or set up by the respondent in her written statement. i am of the opinion that by adopting this course there has been a patent material irregularity in the procedure followed by the trial court. the impugned order would also have the effect to cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the case, a situation ..... the effect of the order is to prolong the trial or where the order causes unnecessary delay in the disposal of the case as also if there has been a patent irregularity in the procedure adopted by the trial court. by postponing the decision of issues nos. 2 and 3, after having decided issue no. 1 against the petitioner, the trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1980 (HC)

Ghulam Qadir and ors. Vs. Sikander and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Jun-06-1980

Reported in : AIR1981J& K30

kotwal, j.1. this appeal raises an important question of interpretation of order 41, rule 17 (1), c. p. c. which arises in the following circumstances : 2. the appellants filed an appeal against a judgment and decree of district judge, bhadarwah, which in their absence, as well as in the absence of their counsel, was dismissed by a learned single judge of this court, on merits, on 20-12-1974. application under order 41, rule 19 for its re-admission was also dismissed by him on 14-3-1975 by a brief order which runs as under :--'the application is dismissed as no ground for admitting the same is made out.'the appellants then moved an application for leave to file an appeal against the said order dated 14-3-1975, which was granted. hence the appeal.3. mr. parihar's contention in the appeal is twofold. according to him, the learned single judge had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits in the absence of the appellants, or their counsel, as such, order dated 20-12-1974, even if it purports to dispose of the appeal on merits, shall still be construed to have been passed under rule 17 (1) for default, and not on merits, entitling the appellants to make an application under rule 19 for re-admission of the appeal. his next contention is that an application under rule 19 could not have been dismissed in lirnine, and the learned single judge was bound to afford the appellants an opportunity of showing sufficient cause for their absence on 20-12-1974, when he proceeded to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1980 (HC)

Abdul Samad Nagu Vs. Ab. Pehman Khanday and anr.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Aug-19-1980

Reported in : 1981CriLJ688

..... that the jurisdiction of the magistrate to take cognizance is barred where the matter is under investigation by the police. the order of the magistrate refusing to issue process is patently perverse and the learned cjm was not justified in confirming the same.2. i, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the trial magistrate and so also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1980 (HC)

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Balbir Singh

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Nov-18-1980

Reported in : AIR1981J&K70

..... person or public company is enabled to do acts or enjoy privileges which he or it could not do or enjoy without such authority". accordingly the letters patent is an executive enactment and not a legislative enactment. the decision in the case of benoari lal sarma v. empreor (air 1943 cal 285) (sb ..... that by an executive enactment the then ruler could amend or override the provisions of 1996 act. the question that necessarily arises is whether the letters patent is an executive enactment or a legislative enactment? if the answer be that it is a legislative enactment, then, there can be no doubt that ..... before a bench of two judges for preliminary hearing." 13. rule 49 reads thus : "an application for a certificate under clause 12 of the letters patent in the case of the judgment of a single judge deciding a second appeal shall be made orally before him immediately after the judgment is delivered. no ..... of sub-section (3) of section 60 within the meaning of section 102 of the constitution. there can be no manner of doubt that the letters patent (jammu and kashmir) are "law for the time being in force" within the meaning of section 102, for they clearly fall within the definition of ..... taken from it was also dismissed by a learned single judge of this court. the appellant then filed an appeal under clause 12 of the letters patent against the judgment of the learned single judge. an objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the learned single judge not having declared the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1980 (HC)

Suraj Prakash and ors. Vs. Jagdish Raj and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Nov-24-1980

Reported in : AIR1981J& K79

..... in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.11. mr. amar chand asks for leave to file an appeal, before the letters patent bench as according to him, the case involves a question of law of general importance the same being, whether the delay in filing a suit would disentitle the plaintiff to ..... on this point to which a reference has been made in the judgment itself. accordingly the argument does not seem to be well conceived, leave to appeal to the letters patent bench is refused.

Tag this Judgment!


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