Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 1958 Page 11 of about 384 results (0.010 seconds)

Mar 27 1958 (HC)

Jai Prakash Beni Pershad and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-27-1958

Reported in : AIR1958P& H471; 1958CriLJ1529

tek chand, j.1. three petitioners, jai parkash, ram krishan and ram gopal have presented this petition under section 3 of the contempt of courts act, praying that suitable action should be taken against respondents 1 to 9 who are alleged to have committed contempt of court of shri om parkash aggarwal, sub-judge i class, jagadhri. the first petitioner and his three brothers were engaged in business at jagadhri which they were carrying on in partnership in two firm names, i.e., messrs. massadi mal fateh chand and messrs. parkash metal industries. the former partnership dealt in purchase and sale of non-ferrous metals while the latter used to manufacture utensils.on 22-7-1957, rajinder kumar one of the partners, sued the other partners and sought dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. the suit was pending in the court of sub-judge first class, jagadhri, shri om parkash aggarwal, arid on an application having been made by the plaintiff under order 40, rule 1, civil procedure code, the civil court appointed petitioners 1 and 2 as joint receivers by its order dated 2-8-1957. the joint receivers were required to carry on the business of partnership for the time being and to submit their reports as to its working.2. on 12-8-1957, petitioner no. 2 submitted a report to the court that in view of the acute labour trouble it was not possible to carry on the business or manufacturing. the parries agreed before the civil court that the business of manufacturing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1958 (HC)

Heerachand Vs. Jeevraj and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-28-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Raj1

..... hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the defendant's story that he had executed the hundi ex. p-l by way of advancing a loan to the plaintiff is patently false and cannot be believed for a moment.46. now, if the matter had rested at this, this case would not have offered any serious difficulty in its decision, and ..... got any khata executed by the plaintiff for this loan or that he took any receipt for this loan from the plaintiff. the story of loan to my mind is patently false, and, if i may say so, utterly absurd. the matter, however, did not rest at that. and, stupidly enough, the plaintiff also led evidence to show that he had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1958 (HC)

B.V. Sundararaja Iyer and ors. Vs. Kanakaraj

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-28-1958

Reported in : (1958)2MLJ374

..... with the admitted case of the respondent that he would be entitled to rs. 5,500-13-9. the appellants have filed this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent against the judgment of mack, j.3. to appreciate the respondent's contention which was accepted by the learned judge, it is necessary to set out the relevant portions of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1958 (SC)

Kanhaiyalal Vs. D.R. Banaji and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-1958

Reported in : AIR1958SC725; [1959]1SCR333

..... the high court of judicature at nagpur, the case was heard by a single judge, niyogi j. who allowed the appeal by judgment dated march 29, 1945. on a letters patent appeal by the auction-purchaser, kanhaiyalal, the matter was heard by a division bench (mangalmurti and deo jj.) the bench affirmed the decision of the learned single judge, and held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1958 (HC)

Meena Ram Vs. Mst. Dwarki

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-31-1958

Reported in : AIR1958P& H417; 1958CriLJ1344

order1. mina ram petitioner was convicted by magistrate, 1st class, kandaghat under section 323, indian penal code, and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 50/-or in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. his petition for revision was referred bythe learned sessions judge with the recommendation that the conviction be set aside as illegal because of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 67 of the pepsu panchayat raj act, 2008bk. as an adalat was in existence and was competent to try the aforesaid case, the question agitated was whether the jurisdiction of the magistrate was ousted. this petition came up before chopra j. and by an order dated 9-6-1955 it has been referred to a larger bench. 2. in orcler to decide the question which has been referred it is necessary to examine the scheme of the pepsu panchayat raj act, 2008 bk, (hereinafter called the act). according to section 54 of the act, the government or the prescribed authority may divide any district into circles, each circle comprising one or more sabha areas, and establish a panchayati adalat for each circle. it is next provided by section 55 that the panchayati adalats may be classified as class i and class ii adalat for the purpose of discharging judicial functions. section 65 gives jurisdiction to the adalat to try the offences mentioned in the schedules as well as in the section itself. it is common ground that an offence under section 323, indian penal code, would be within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1958 (HC)

R. B. L. Banarsi Dass and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-31-1958

Reported in : [1959]35ITR624(P& H)

chopra, j. - this is a petition under section 66 (2) of the income-tax act for an order requiring the income-tax appellate tribunal, bombay beach 'a', camp, delhi, to state a case and refer certain questions of law which allegedly arise out of two orders of the tribunal dated april 2, 1949, and may 14, 1952. in the petition as many as nine questions were stated so to arise and we sought to be referred, but mr. sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has confined his arguments to the following three questions and wants those alone to be referred : '1. whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal before the appellate tribunal was filed by the proper person. 2. whether there is any material on record affording sufficient justification to support the conclusion drawn by the tribunal for restoring the addition of rs. 90,000 out of rs. 1,50,000 totally deleted by the appellate assistant commissioner. 6. whether under the facts and circumstance of the case and having rectified the figure of 35 chhataks to 17 chhataks the tribunal could, instead of deleting the entire addition of rs. 1,50,000 revise the original order so as to include in the income a sum of rs. 90,000.' the facts relevant for the purposes of this petition are these : the petitioner is a private limited company of ambala. the assessment on the petition for the year 1945-46 was made by the income-tax officer, d ward, amritsar, on march 28, 1946. the assessee preferred an appeal which was .....

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 02 1958 (HC)

Dulal Chandra Bhar and ors. Vs. Sukumar Banerjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-02-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Cal474,1958CriLJ1162,62CWN595

..... have shown no eagerness, either to allow the respondents to resume possession of the land or to return their goods. the manoeuvring for possession in which they have indulged are patent and many of them may even be wicked. but to find that they have been guilty of contempt of this court on such passive non-compliance with the implications of ..... is whether the appeal lies. it can be beld to lie only if it can be shown that the order appealed from is appealable under clause 15 of the letters patent and it can be shown to be appealable under that clause only if it is not an order of one of the excepted kinds and if it amounts to a .....

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 07 1958 (HC)

Her Highness Maharani Vijaya Raje ScIndia Vs. Motilal Jugal Kishore

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-07-1958

Reported in : AIR1959MP109

..... is only if the section be considered as mandatory that the election of the appellant can be declared void under section 100 of the act, because, if directory, there is patently a substantial compliance with it. 16. here we come to another branch of the argument as to whether a breach of section 37 by the candidate, whose notice of withdrawal .....

Tag this Judgment!


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