Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 68 results (0.027 seconds)

Jan 08 1980 (HC)

Balwant Singh Gill and ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh Brar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-08-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H139

order1. this revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order of the subordinate judge first class faridkot dated february 8, 1979 disallowing an application under o. 12 rule 4, code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code).2. briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for the recovery of rs. 46,000/- against the defendants. the plaintiffs completed their evidence on october 24 and 25, 1978. thereafter gurdev singh defendant appeared as his own witness on december 8, 1978 and his statement was concluded on january 16, 1979. on that date, i. e. january 16, 1979 the plaintiffs filed an application under order 12 rule 4 of the code praying that a notice be issued to the defendants to admit certain facts. the application was opposed inter-alia on the ground that no such application could be filed at that late stage. the leamed trial court dismissed the same. the plaintiffs have come up in revision against the said order,3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under o. 12 rule 4, no period has been prescribed for serving such a notice. he argues that even if the plaintiffs had completed their evidence they had the right to serve a notice under the said rule and the learned trial court erroneously rejected their application.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties at n considerable length but am not impressed with the contention. it is not disputed that the plaintiffs completed their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1980 (HC)

Kundan Lal and anr. Vs. Mehtab Ram and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-11-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H182

order1. this is a revision petition by kundan lal et cetera, petitioners, against the order of the subordinate judge, second class, kaithal, dated april 9, 1979, setting aside the award.2. briefly, the facts are that the petitioners and the respondents started a business of manufacture and sale of bricks in partnership under the name and style of m/s. cheeka brick kiln indusry at cheeka. they executed a deed of partnership on september 20, 1968. one of the terms in the deed was that in case of dispute relating to partnership business, it would be referred to arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the indian arbitration act (hereinafter referred to as the act). some disputes arose between the patties and the petitioners filed an application under section 20 of the act in the court of the subordinate judge, praying that the matter be referred to the arbitrator. he referred it to the arbitration of bua ditta brick-kiln-owner.3. the arbitrator made an award and filed it in the court on november 4, 1976. the respondents raised an objection against the award that no points well framed by the court upon which the arbitrator was to give the award and, therefore, it was not sustainable. the objection of the respondent was upheld by the subordinate judge vide order dated april 9, 1979. he therefore set aside the award. the petitioners have come up in revision against the said order to this court.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1980 (HC)

Daulat Ram Vs. Girdhari Lal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-15-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H131

..... . thus the only conclusion is that he cannot claim to live in the house of his sister's son as a matter of right. his continuance to live there is patently at their mercy. there is no evidence to rebut the contention of the landlord that his sister's son was pressing him to leave the premises and he was also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1980 (HC)

Mam Chand and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-24-1980

Reported in : 1981CriLJ190

..... the appellants had gone armed, they must have known that there was likelihood of murder being committed in prosecution of their common object. if ever there was a case which patently and squarely calls for the applicability of section 149, i.p.c. it is the present one. the argument on this score, therefore, merits nothing but rejection.16. the appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1980 (HC)

Trading Engineering Vs. Nirmala Devi and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-05-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H115

order1. this is a petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, against the order of the commissioner under workmen's compensation act, dated l4th september, 1979.2. one shri ram chander, workman, resident of sohna, dist. gurgaon, died in an accident on 6th january, 1976. his: widow, shrimati nirmala devi, respondent, filed an application under the workmen's compensation act, 1923, on l3th november, 1978, claiming death compensation of her husband. along with that application, an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the indian limitation act, was also filed in the written statement filed on behalf of the employer, an objection was taken that the application was not maintainable, as the widow has already received rs. 10,000/- under the motor vehicles act, 1939, as she had applied for compensation along with the parents of her deceased husband in the court o! the motor accident claims tribunal, gurgaon, and she was awarded rs. 10,000/-. it was also stressed that the application is time-barred and also barred-under section 110-aa of the motor vehicles act, 1939. on the pleadings of the parties the learned commissioner framed the following issues:--l. whether the present application is maintainable in view of section 110-aa of the motor vehicles act, 1939, and section 3(5) of the workmen's compensation act, 1923? 2. whether the accident arose out of and during the course of employment? 3. whether the claim application is barred by the limitation ? 4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1980 (HC)

Sarup Chand Vs. Nagar Palika, Sangrur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-06-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H114

order1. the plaintiff-petitioner bar filed this revision petition against the order of the trial court, whereby application under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, field on behalf of respondent no. 2, talia ram, has been allowed.2. the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against nagar palika, sangrur, to the effect that the defendant be restrained from demolishing and breaking the wall, mentioned in the notice dated 11th june, 1979, issued by the defendant. during the pendency of this suit, one talia ram filed an application under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, with the prayer that he be impleaded as a respondent in the suit. his case is that there is one lane shown by letters abc in the site plan attached and there was a wall in front of this lane which wall was demolished in the year 1978, and any relief granted to the plaintiff in his absence, is likely to affect him adversely, and that he ought to be arrayed as a party so that court may be able to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit this application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff and it was stated that he has got no interest in the suit property and he is not affected thereby. the trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to implead talia ram as defendant. it has been observed by the trial court, that 'contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1980 (HC)

Renuka Batra Vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-11-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H146

order1. this is a petition filed on behalf of the objector (third party) against the order of the executing court dated 5th may, 1979, whereby her preliminary objection has been decided against her.2. grindleys bank limited obtained a decree for rs. 99,904.82 ex parte on 5th april, 1978, and lodged execution in which warrant of attachment was issued to the executive engineer all india institute of medical sciences, new delhi, prohibiting the payment to the judgment debtor firm. smt renuka batra, a sole proprietor of batra associates, filed an objection petition under order 21 rule 58 of the code of civil procedure in which a preliminary objection was taken that the court at amritsar had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant of attachment prohibiting the payments outside its jurisdiction at delhi. on the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issue was framed on 3lst march, 1979, and the parties did not produce any evidence o this issue, though full opportunity was given:--'whether this court has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of injunction? opdh'3. the executing court came to the conclusion that the warrant of attachment has been properly issued by the executing court at amritsar as it had the jurisdiction and there is no illegality about it reliance has been placed or. british transport co. ltd. v. suraj bhan, air 1963 all 313 and gayoor ahmad khan v. hazarimal, air 1965 raj 41. feeling aggrieved by this order, the objector has come up in revision to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1980 (HC)

Karnail Singh and ors. Vs. Kapur Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H202

..... , on which ad valorem court-fee has been paid, i, still pending decision?'2. the learned single judge, against whose judgment the present appeal under clause x of the letters patent has been filed, has on the basis of a division bench judgment of the lahore high court in budhuram v. niamat rai air 1923 lah 632, held that a fixed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1980 (HC)

Sada Singh Vs. the State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H222

order1. this order will dispose of 27 civil writs nos. 415, 498, 775, 785, 1478, 1479, 1489, 1492, 1513, 1533, 1534, 1548, 1581, 1606, 1661, 1884, 1817, 2164 of 1977; 2658 of 1978; 267, 585, 812, 3698, 3920, 4048, 4332 and 4575 of 1979 as common questions are involved therein.2. the petitioners in all the writs are residents of mohali and madanpur which fell in the controlled area under the punjab new capital (periphery) control act 1952, (hereinafter the act). they made constructions in the controlled area without obtaining permission of the deputy commissioner under section 5 of the act. notices were thereupon issued to them under s. 12(2) of the act to show cause why the unauthorised constructions made by them should not be demolished. the petitioners raised objections. the deputy commissioner, vide order dated december 3/6 1976, overruled the same and directed the demolition of the unauthorised constructions. the petitioners have filed the writs challenging this order of the dy. commissioner. in civil writ petitions nos. 1489 and 1684 of 1977, the peti4oners did apply to the deputy commissioner on august 9, 1971, to raise constructions but the permission was refused on october 19, 1971. in civil writ petitions nos. 415 and 1606 of 1977 the petitioners applied for such permission on september 24, 1968, but no order was passed within a period of three months and their applications were returned on january 6, 1969 and january 7, 1969 respectively.3. section 12(2) of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1980 (HC)

Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H282

d.s. tewatia, j.1. the sole question that falls for determination in this letters patent appeal is as to whether the action of the estate officer, union territory, chandigarh, respondent no. 2, in resuming the site in question on which house no. 1515 at sector .....

Tag this Judgment!


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