Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 1958 Page 5 of about 384 results (0.041 seconds)

Feb 13 1958 (HC)

K. Sarojini Devi Vs. A. Krishnamoorthy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-13-1958

Reported in : (1958)2MLJ166

p. rajagopalan, o.c.j.1. this appeal filed under clause 15 of the letters patent arose out of proceedings which commenced with the presentation of o.p. no. 254 of 1954 in the city civil court. that petition was presented by krishnamoorthy, the respondent in ..... court refusing the dissolution of the marriage is not the subject-matter of this appeal.9. the appellant will be entitled to her costs from the respondent in the letters patent appeal.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1958 (HC)

B. Tulsi Pat Ram and anr. Vs. Nayab Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-13-1958

Reported in : AIR1958All565

..... rejection of the application under order xli, rule 21 having been dismissed on 1-9-1933 the application for execution was within time the matter was considered in a letters patent appeal by a bench consisting of courtney-terrell, c. j. and james, j. the learned chief justice took the view that there, was no essential difference between orders for restoration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1958 (HC)

Chunduri Venkata Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-14-1958

Reported in : [1959]35ITR87(AP)

..... their own expellers, the firm at lahore calling its expellers as 'chisty diamond' and the firm at bezwada 'andhra diamond', and neither of the parties was permitted to imitate the patent of the other. above all, the most important clause was that the lahore merchant was to give four expellers, two 'n. s. sholer type' and two 'standard type', free of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1958 (HC)

N. Gopalan Vs. Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-17-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Ker341

..... allegations and proof of certain facts, that party will not be allowed to raise objection about jurisdiction in an application under article 226. where, however, the lack of jurisdiction is patent the mere fact that no objection was taken before the statutory authorities would not disable the applicant from raising such question in an application under article 226.'it is further .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1958 (HC)

Hazura Singh Vs. Jewon Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-17-1958

Reported in : AIR1958P& H339

a.n. grover, j.1. the only point which requires determination in this appeal is whether the objections filed by the judgment-debtor in july, 1956 in execution proceedings are barred by operation of the rule of constructive res judicata owing to the dismissal of the previous objections on 18-10-1955 in default. the decree was passed as far back as 9-12-1949 in the sum of rs. 787/- with costs.the application for execution was made in april, 1952 to which objections were taken in august 1955, but owing to the absence of the judgment-debtor these were dismissed on 18-10-1955. the explanation given for the absence is that there were unprecedented floods at that time of the year and even a circular had been issued by the erstwhile pepsu high court on 5-10-1955 that cases should not be dismissed in default.an appeal was taken against the order of dismissal, but the same was rejected on 22-3-1956 on the ground that the order was not appealable. on 13-7-1956 the present objections were filed. both the courts below have dismissed the objections on the ground that they are barred by the principle of res judicata.2. it seems that the learned district judge has been largely affected by the fact that there has been a good deal of delay in the execution of the decree. he has referred to certain observations of the privy council that the difficulties of a litigant in india begin after obtaining the decree, but this can be no ground for giving an erroneous decision.3. so far as the lahore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1958 (HC)

Muthuramalinga thevar Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Chief ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-18-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Mad425; 1958CriLJ1047; (1958)IIMLJ169

..... , had in view. when the grounds justified the detention of the petitioner, it cannot be said that it was a case of satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority, 'patently simulated' see ashutosh lahiri v. state of delhi : air1953sc451 .9. the learned advocate general drew our attention to the instructive passages in the judgments of lord reid and lord radcliffe .....

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)

The Associated Cement Cos. Ltd., Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur Vs. ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-1958

Reported in : AIR1958P& H330; (1959)ILLJ64P& H

..... is an 'industrial dispute'.'i understand that the aforesaid judgment of falshaw j., has recently been upheld in the letters patent appeal against the same which was heard recently by the circuit bench at delhi. asection the records of the letters patent appeal have yet not reached chandigarh i could not have the advantage of perusing that judgment. i am unable to .....

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!

Feb 21 1958 (HC)

Raj Spinning Mills Vs. A. and G. King Ltd., Raglan Mills, England

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-21-1958

Reported in : AIR1959P& H45

1. this appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 30,000 filed by an amritsar firm against an english limited company, the suit having been dismissed by the trial court by its judgment dated 11-7-1950. the plaintiff and the defendant seem to have had business relations prior to november, 1946 and the plaintiff had opened a letter of credit through the punjab national bank limited, amritsar, but the previous deal fell through, and actually on 14-11-1946 the defendant wrote a letter, exhibit d 3, saying that the plaintiff's method of business was somewhat irregular and therefore business transactions would be discontinued.but it seems that later on the parties decidedto enter into another transaction. by means of aletter dated 26-11-1946, exhibit d.2, the midlandbank, london, informed the defendant at bradford that advice had been received from the punjabnational bank ltd. amritsar, issuing confirmed credit in its favour on account of raj spinning millsto the extent of 13,000 valid until 15-3-1947 andavailable by their drafts at sight accompanied by--'certified invoice in three copies along with--shipped bills of certificate of origin (formlading in complete a) if goods of british make,set to order and insurance policy of certifi-blank endorsed, cate covering marine and'freight paid' war risks.evidencing shipment of the undermentioned goods by s. s. or m. v. from u. k. to karachi. worsted spinning plant complete with bobbins, wheels and all spares c. i. f. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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