Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.008 seconds)

Jun 04 1958 (HC)

V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Alfred Schafraneck and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1960Kant173; AIR1960Mys173

..... , however, admitted that, on 4-3-46, defendants 1 and 2 alone applied for registering their names as inventors and for the grant of a patent in their favour. this application was finally sealed on 6-2-47, the day next after the release deed was passed. in this connection, the plaintiff ..... bring any suit for infringement of patent rights regarding the patent to question.'under these circumstance we have to hold that the plaintiff could not institute this suit under the provisions of section 29 of the ..... although the petitioner had assigned his rights to that plaintiff, the latter had not registered the assignment under the provisions of section 63 of the indian patents and designs act. therefore he was not the patentee within the meaning of the act (section 2, sub-section 12) and had no right to ..... by reason of the joint acquisition, the plaintiff has derived a beneficial interest in the plaintiff has derived a beneficial interest in the right of a patent. whether there is evidence to show that he has acquired this right or not, is a question of fact which will be discussed later.assuming ..... 1 to 3 from manufacturing or marketing flower design chair seats. these reliefs are apparently claimed on the ground that the plaintiff has the patent rights under the patents and designs act. but it is a curious suit in that the registered patentees are admittedly defendants 1 and 2 and, on their assignment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1958 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mysore Vs. K.H. Shama Rao and Sons

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-18-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant57; AIR1959Mys57; ILR1958KAR373; (1958)36MysLJ606

..... observed by their lordships of the bombay high court in the case to which i have just now referred that a mistake to be rectified should, however, be a mistake 'patent on the record and not a mistake which may be discovered by a process of elucidation, argument or debate.'one of the debatable points which the sales-tax officer had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1958 (HC)

In Re: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bangalore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-18-1958

Reported in : [1959]10STC29(Kar)

..... observed by their lordships of the bombay high court in the case to which i have just now referred that a mistake to be rectified should, however, be a mistake 'patent on the record and not a mistake which may be discovered by a process of elucidation, argument or debate.' one of the debatable points which the sales tax officer had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1958 (HC)

In Re: Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-18-1958

..... observed by their lordships of the bombay high court in the case to which i have just now referred that a mistake to be rectified should, however, be a mistake 'patent on the record and not a mistake which may be discovered by a process of elucidation, argument or debate.' one of the debatable points which the sales tax officer had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1958 (HC)

Bharmanna and ors. Vs. Shiragondappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-14-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant81; AIR1959Mys81; ILR1958KAR552; (1958)36MysLJ840

..... to a widow's estate in respect of her husband's land. the same view was taken in umrao singh v. pirthi : air1925all369 , a decision which was affirmed on letters patent appeal. these decisions are based on a decision of their lordships of the privy council in lajwanti v. safa chand, air 1924 pc 121: 51 ind app 171.' i shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1958 (HC)

B.N. Munibasappa Vs. Gurusiddaraja Desikendra Swamigal and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-26-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant139; AIR1959Mys139

..... support of their cases was a clear misuse of the provisions of order 19 of the code of civil procedure. the order under revision which is the outcome of a patently illegal procedure adopted by the learned munsiff is therefore liable to be set aside. 27. but, it was agreed in this court by mr, narasimha murthy and mr, chandriab, advocatesappearing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1958 (HC)

S. Sridhar Rai Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kolar ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-12-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant120; AIR1959Mys120

..... matter of the exercise of the jurisdiction under article 226.as pointed out by chief justice chagla in a decision reported in prashar v. vasantsen, : air1956bom530 , when there is a patent want of jurisdiction, the petitioner would be entitled to obtain immediate relief from the high court, even though he could raise the plea of want of jurisdiction in a higher .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 1958 (HC)

Mallangowda and ors. Vs. Gavisiddangowda and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-27-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant194; AIR1959Mys194

iqbal hussain, j. 1. this is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge, koppal, richer district passed in appeal no. 4/4 of 1358 fasli confirming the judgment and decree passed by the munsiff, koppal, in o. s. no. 122/1 of 1856f. even though this is an appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below, points of law have been raised in this appeal which require consideration.according to the civil procedure code of hyderabad, greater latitude is given to the appellants in second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure (section 602 of the hyderabad civil procedure code) than it is under the civil procedure code as applicable throughout india. as this suit was filed long prior to the coming into force of the latter, opportunity is given to the parties to argue both on facts as well as on law.2. the facts of the case arc briefly as follows:3. plaintiff gavisiddanna gowda who is the respondent in the first appellate court as well as before [his court, filed a suit before the munsiff's court, koppal, raichur district for specific performance of a sale entered into by defendants 1 to 5 (appellants 1 to 5) in favour of the plaintiff. as the property was mortgaged with possession to the sixth defendant venkavva, plaintiff prayed for possession of the suit property and for redemption of the mortgage in favour of the said venkawa, the sixth defendant.the land in question is survey no. 740 -- 8 acres 4 guntas in extent .....

Tag this Judgment!


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