Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 1958 Page 7 of about 384 results (0.011 seconds)

Feb 28 1958 (HC)

Kanhayyalal Shivasahay Sharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-1958

Reported in : AIR1958MP211; [1958]9STC503(MP)

..... acts could be relied upon by the appellate authorities of the department. the contention of the petitioner is that on the date on which the assessment was made it was patently beyond time because the act came into force on 23-5-1947, and even three calendar years calculated from that date would expire in 1950 and not in 1952. he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1958 (HC)

Rattan Chand and anr. Vs. Bhagirath Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-28-1958

Reported in : AIR1958P& H406

a.n. grover, j. 1. on the 26th of february 1946defendants nos. 1 and 3 sold certain land for rs. 3,000/- to the plaintiffs. rs. 200/- were paid to the vendors in advance and it is stated that a report with regard to the sale was made to the patwari (exhibit pw1/1). on the same date a document was executed. exhibit p. 5. it was stated, interalia, in this document, which was in the form of a receipt, that the possession had been given to the vendees after a sale having been effected in their favour and that a sum of rs. 200/- had been paid by way of earnest money out of the sale consideration and the balance of rs. 2,800/- would be paid at the time of mutation. later on the vendors got a better offer and wanted to sell the same land to defendant no. 4. in march 1946 the plaintiffs actually sent notices to the vendors as well as to defendant no. 4 apprising them of the agreement in their favour. on the 20th of march 1946 the land was sold for rs. 4,500/- exhibit d. 1, to defendant no. 4. on 1st march 1948 the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of the sale and in the alternative for a decree for rs. 1,000/- as damages and rs. 200/- by way of refund of the earnest money. the trial court decreed the suit for rs. 1,200/-, but the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the document, exhibit p. 5, was compulsorily registrable and therefore inadmissible in evidence. for that reason the damages in the sum of rs. 1,000/- were disallowed, but the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1958 (FN)

Andrew G. Nelson, Inc. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-03-1958

..... commission issued an appropriate cease and desist order prohibiting carriage of unauthorized goods. held: the commission's order is sustained. pp. 355 u. s. 555 -562 (a) there being no patent ambiguity or specialized trade usage involved, the ordinary meaning of the words used in the commodity description is controlling. pp. 355 u. s. 557 -558. (b) the commission's intent ..... the plain meaning of words in a commodity description is controlling in the absence of ambiguity or specialized usage in the trade. neither of the parties believes the description here patently ambiguous, [ footnote 3 ] nor do we consider page 355 u. s. 558 it to be such. moreover, appellant is unwilling to say that the instant description is a term of ..... phraseology exhibits no ambiguity or indefiniteness. in this regard, the commission held, "we agree with the contention of the parties and the examiner's conclusion that there is no such patent ambiguity in the permit as to warrant our going back of it and giving consideration to events prior to its issuance." 63 m.c.c. at 409. absent ..... patent ambiguity, it is well established that the commission will not refer to the underlying grandfather operation. p. saldutti & son, inc. -- interpretation of permit, 63 m.c.c. 593. even if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1958 (HC)

M.S. Nagaraja Dikshitar Alias M.S. Nagaraja Sarma Vs. Sundaresa Sastri ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1958

Reported in : (1958)2MLJ557

..... was mentioned before me by mr. jagadisan, who appeared for the appellant in a.s. no. 164 of 1956, that that appeal is now the subject-matter of a letters patent appeal. the bench ruling in rajagopal naidu v. sivakami amtnal : (1956)1mlj589 , directly applies to this case and holds that a sub-mortgagee in respect of one or more items .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1958 (HC)

Mst. Mewa Widow of Matram and anr. Vs. Amar Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-03-1958

Reported in : AIR1959P& H515

bishan narain, j. 1. the house in dispute originally belonged to one kharga. it was inherited by his sons amar singh and harnam in equal shares. on 9-4-1925 the brothers mortgaged the whole house for rs. 300/- with tagmal. on 10-1-1933 they sold the western half of the house to the mortgagee for rs. 500/- and the mortgage was redeemed. thus the eastern half of the house became free from mortgage. jagmal in his turn sold the western portion to pat ram on 6-12-1934 it appears that one mat ram filed a suit for the recovery of certain amount against the two brothers. in 1928 the suit against harnam was dismissed hut it was decreed against amar singh.in execution of his decree mat ram got attached the equity of redemption of amar singh's share in the house in march 1933. jagmal filed objections under order xxi rule 58, civil procedure code, on the ground that he was owner of the western half by purchase and that this portion could not be attached and sold in execution of the decree of mat ram. the objections were dismissed on 8-1-1934 on the ground that the same had been filed after long delay. neither jagmal nor pat ram, his suecessor-in-interest, filed any suit under order 21 rule 63, civil procedure code. the attached property was sold and the decree-holder purchased it on 15-12-1933.the sale was confirmed on 18-1-1934. the sale certificate was issued on 9-2-1937 and the decree-holder's case is that he got symbolical pos-session of the property sold in his favour on 1-3-1937. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1958 (HC)

Jagir Singh Vs. Dheru and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1958P& H487

..... instituted more than three years after the termination of the agency on the agent's death was barred by time. this is an appeal by the plaintiff under the letters patent.3. the only question that has to be determined is whether the case is governed by article 89 of schedule i of the limitation act. if it is, the suit ..... g.l. chopra, j.1. the only point involved in this letters patent appeal is one of limitation. the facts which are not disputed before us are these:2. jagir singh appellant appointed one nathn his 'mukhtar-i-am' (general attorney), on 15- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1958 (HC)

Thiruvengada Mudaliar Vs. T. Narayana Reddiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad141

..... points and held that the suit was maintainable and remanded the suit to the trial court for disposal on merits. he, however, granted leave to appeal and hence this letters patent appeal by the second defend ant, auction-purchaser in the sale in execution of the decree in o.. s. no. 67 of 1934. learned counsel for the appellant once again ..... concerned property did not pass out of the estate of the insolvent before adjudication. 4. as both the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant fail the letters patent appeal must be and is hereby dismissed with costs of the plaintiff-respondent.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1958 (HC)

Padmanabhan Mathevan Vs. Ramaswami Pillai Mathevan Pillai

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Ker5

..... preceding proviso, anything done or any action taken (including any appointment or delegation made, notification, order, instruction or direction issued, rule, regulation, form, bye-law or scheme framed, certificate obtained, patent, permit or license granted or registration effected under any such law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the act or ordinance as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1958 (HC)

Manickam Pillai Subbayya Pillai Vs. Assistant Registrar, High Court, K ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-04-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Ker188

..... 21 and in the proviso to section 6 of the travancore-cochin high court act, and is obviously used in the same sense as in clause 36 of the letters patent of the chartered high courts, and in section 15 of the travancore-cochin high court act (e.f. section 21 thereof) and in article 225 of the constitution, namely, to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1958 (HC)

N. Santhanam Iyer Alias Santhanarama Iyer Vs. Somasundara Vanniar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1958

Reported in : (1958)1MLJ400

..... for consideration was as to whether an order refusing to raise an additional issue would be a judgment within the meaning of that expression in clause 15 of the letters patent act. a full bench of this court held that no appeal lay, meaning thereby that it was not a judgment.5. the expression used in this act is not 'judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!


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