Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: mumbai Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 29 results (0.007 seconds)

Jan 06 1958 (HC)

Major General Shanta Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana Vs. Kamani Brothers Pr ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-06-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom201; (1958)60BOMLR1024; [1959]29CompCas501(Bom)

..... . the sum total of man's personal rights, on the other hand, constitutes his status or personal condition, as opposed to his estate. if he owns land, or chattels, or patent rights, or the goodwill of a business, or shares in a company or if debts are owning to him, all these rights pertain to his estate. but if he is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1958 (HC)

Manji Khimji Patel of Bhut, Kutch Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-15-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom236; (1959)61BOMLR132; ILR1958Bom1319

..... could be considered as sale of goods.4. in our view, the contracts of the nature undertaken by these applicants are not contracts for the sale of goods. this is patently clear on the face of the contracts themselves. that being so, the legislature of a state has no power to levy sales tax by treating these transactions as involving sale .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1958 (HC)

The State of Bombay Vs. P.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-19-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom182; (1958)60BOMLR873; 1956CriLJ567

..... 27. apart from the provisions contained in the contempt of court act, 1952, we have also the provisions contained in clause 38 of the letters patent. that clause runs as follows: 'and we do further ordain that the proceedings in all criminal cases which shall be brought before the said high ..... provisions hereinbefore mentioned. in view of the provisions referred to above, even if there was any necessity to rely upon the provisions of the letters patent and the rules for the purpose of the exercise of jurisdiction in matters of contempt by a single judge or by a division bench of this ..... contempt of court and to inflict punishment for such contempt. 20. even though it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the letters patent or the high court rules for the purpose of showing that a judge sitting singly or a division bench of this court has jurisdiction to ..... that act, it was provided as under: '2(1). subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the high court of judicature established by letters patent shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure, and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to ..... as was exercised in the court of the king's bench division in england. that jurisdiction has been preserved under the charters act, under the letters patent and under the constitution. article 225 of the constitution provides as under: '225. subject to the provisions of this constitution and to the provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1958 (HC)

Radhakishan Brijlal Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-19-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom102; (1958)60BOMLR748

..... a higher tribunal for relief. it is clear from the facts of this case that there was a threat to assess income-tax under section 34 by an officer who patently had no jurisdiction and whose authority to do so had already been exhausted, such a question does not arise before me. on the other hand, as i have already pointed ..... the income-tax officer had exceeded his authority in issuing the notice, the want of jurisdiction pleaded by the petitioner was a patent one and the court under article 226 could prevent the officer from assuming jurisdiction which he patently did not possess. the learned chief justice, who delivered the judgment, pointed out that there were two exceptions to the rule that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1958 (HC)

Madanmohan and ors. Vs. Hari Anandilal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-19-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom269; (1958)60BOMLR829; ILR1959Bom256

..... appeal, set aside the decree of the two court's below the decree the plaintiff's suit with costs in all the courts. 13. leave to appeal under the letters patent is refused.14. appeal allowed.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1958 (HC)

Shantilal Rawji Vs. M.C. Nair, Iv Income-tax Officer, E Ward, Bombay, ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-01-1958

Reported in : [1958]34ITR439(Bom)

..... pointed out as to what is the exact significance of the expression 'error apparent on the face of the record' and at page 340 we say : 'a mistake must be patent on the record; it must not be a mistake which can be discovered by a process of elucidation or argument or debate. the mistake being ..... patent on the record rectification must be limited to correcting that mistake only without any further argument or debate.' 4. the contention of the department is that looking to the provision .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1958 (HC)

Sunder Dumanna Shetty Vs. K.D. Billimoria and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-03-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom346; (1958)60BOMLR1314

..... is not a fit and proper person to be allowed to keep and conduct a place of public entertainment.26. as the order passed by the commissioner of police is patently bad, the petitioner is entitled to the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the commissioner of police to withdraw the said order. in view of the fact that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1958 (HC)

Wasudeo Bhairulal Agarwal Vs. Ramchandra Rao Mahadeo Rao Joshi

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-08-1958

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR1247

..... like to make one thing clear and it is that the decision relied on is one of the nagpur high court and is not binding on us under the letters patent or under the rules made by the bombay high court. while we must respect the decision of the nagpur high court it is not binding upon us. we, therefore, feel .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1958 (HC)

Ramchandra Vs. Laxman

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-14-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom49; (1958)60BOMLR1164; ILR1959Bom134

..... second appeal, and it is well settled that points which were not taken in second appeal cannot be allowed to be taken up for the first time in the letters patent appeal. we, therefore, have not allowed him to take up and develop the points which are noted above. 5. then the point that survives for consideration in this appeal would ..... and allowed the appeal. the same view was taken by mr. justice bhutt in second appeal. 4. now, the only question that arises in the present appeal under the letters patent is whether the plaintiff can contend that he has become owner by right of adverse possession against the defendant who has purchased the property in execution of the order in ..... k.g. datar, j.1. this is an appeal by the plaintiff under the letters patent from the judgment of mr. justice bhutt delivered in school appeal no. 91 of 1948. a few facts may be stated before we consider the points that have been raised .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1958 (HC)

Pundlik Vishwanath Vs. Mahadeo Binjraj and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-25-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom2; ILR1959Bom283

..... has been directed against the order passed by the learned additional district judge. 2. mr. a.s. bobde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the order challenged is patently erroneous in law for the reason that the learned lower court erred in interpreting section 428 of the city of nagpur corporation act, 1948, and accordingly dismissing the election petition .....

Tag this Judgment!


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