Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 30 results (0.008 seconds)

Jan 04 2005 (HC)

Richhpal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj682; 2005(1)WLC548

..... source of recruitment, method of teaching, hors of teaching and the mode of payment are entirely different. in the fact and circumstances of this case the high court feel into patent error in applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.94. thus, having given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the issue involved we are of the view that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2005 (HC)

indraraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-28-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1861

..... would cause injustice to the petitioners.8. in the result, this petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 22.6.2004 passed by the trial court is held to be patently illegal and is hereby quashed. however, it is observed that if the prosecution/jail authorities produce material before the trial court to show that the prisoners (petitioners) are violent, disorderly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2005 (HC)

Kamla (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Harbhajan Singh and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-08-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Raj288; RLW2005(4)Raj2237; 2005(3)WLC475

..... , is to have far reaching, and devastating consequence, rather, is bound to result into, plain and simple throttling justice, and is likely to bring about a situation that would be patently voilative of principles of natural justice. day in and day out, this court has been coming across the cases, including one case, being cma no. 307/2001, which this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (HC)

i.R. Trivedi Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2590; 2005(4)WLC119

..... will not liable to be considered for any purpose as if a favour is conferred on the petitioner, suffers not only from vice of arbitrariness and unfairness but results in patent breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under article 14 and 16 of the constitution which cannot be sustained.30. it appears that some sort of bias for polytechnic ..... to equal emoluments and equal status as a director as of right on the jejune ground that he comes from iti wing and not from the polytechnic colleges suffers from patent and gross violation of right to equality guaranteed under the provisions of article 14 and right of equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment guaranteed under article 16 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2005 (HC)

Sawa Ram Vs. the Municipal Board and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-14-2005

Reported in : [2005(105)FLR956]; RLW2005(2)Raj1157

..... a jurisdictional fact.16. from perusing the judgment and award dtd. 18.5.2004 (annex.p/1) passed by the learned labour court, it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned labour court are perverse.17. thus, the judgment and award ..... the constitution of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. while exercising the powers under article 227 of the constitution of india, the high court does not act as court of appeal.15. the high court's power of ..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the labour court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. the findings of facts recorded by the labour court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity,14. apart from that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2005 (HC)

Ashu Gupta Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2416

..... provided it false within the ambit and scope of revisional jurisdiction. the rent control act 2001 has been enacted for speedy disposal of cases filed for eviction and it is patently obvious that for this very purpose the provision of appeal against an order of eviction passed by the tribunal by way of a summary procedure has not been provided under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2005 (HC)

Ramesh Chand Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-24-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Raj208; RLW2005(2)Raj1073; 2005(2)WLC305

..... beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or resulting in manifest injustice.5. in surya dev rai v. ramchandra rai and ors ..... , held that the appeal filed against the order of the single judge to the division bench was rightly dismissed as being not maintainable because under clause 15 of the letters patent an intra-court appeal against the decision of the single judge exercising jurisdiction under article 227 is barred.15. the principle laid down in the case of umaji keshao meshram ..... umaji keshao meshram.16. in lokmat news papers v. shankar prasad, (1999)6 scc 275, the apex court held that if a single judge exercise jurisdiction under article 226, letters patent appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under article 227 it will not be maintainable.17. division bench of rajasthan high court in anandi lal v. state ..... gives ancillary directions which may pertain to article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226.conclusion28. as we have earlier noticed that the apex court in baby v. travancore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2005 (HC)

Ramesh Chand Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-24-2005

Reported in : [2005]147TAXMAN61(Raj)

..... gives ancillary directions which may pertain to article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent where the substantial port of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226.conclusion:28. as we have earlier noticed that the apex court in baby v ..... is umaji keshao meshram.16. in lokmat newspapers v. shankar prasad (1999) 6 scc 275, the apex court held that if a single judge exercise jurisdiction under article 226, letters patent appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under article 227 it will not be maintainable.17. division bench of rajasthan high court in anandi lal v. state ..... , held that the appeal filed against the order of the single judge to the division bench was rightly dismissed as being not maintainable because under clause 15 of the letters patent and intra-court appeal against the decision of the single judge exercising jurisdiction under article 227 is barred.15. the principle laid down in the case of umaji keshao meshram ..... beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or resulting in manifest injustice.5. in surya dev rai v. ramchander rai (2003) 6 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2005 (HC)

Sunil Kumar JaIn Vs. State and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-28-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1425; 2005WLC(Raj)UC482

..... request, the instant criminal revision petition is being disposed of finally at the admissions stage. notices are not required to be issued to the non- petitioners in view of the patent illegality in the impugned order.2. this petition has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2005 passed by the learned judge, family court no. 2, jaipur under section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2005 (HC)

Rajendra Kumar Soni Vs. Authority Appointed and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-04-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj787; 2006(1)WLC734

..... definition of 'employee' given out in section 2(5) of the act of 1958, would be outside the purview of shops and commercial establishment act of 1958. it is thus patently clear that the respondent-anil steel and industries which was admittedly registered under the factories act, would be governed under the factories act of 1948 and the appellant who was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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