Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 1980 Page 4 of about 422 results (0.012 seconds)

Feb 01 1980 (HC)

General Industries Vs. Bank of Rajasthan and Rajasthan State Mines and ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-01-1980

Reported in : [1981]51CompCas405(Cal),84CWN884

..... jurisdiction of a particular forum did not oust the jurisdiction of the appropriate court. the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit was vested in it by the letters patent or by the constitution. the parties could not by any private agreement confer or take away the jurisdiction, but the court could compel the parties to abide by their contracts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Tejoomal Lakhmichand Vs. M.J. Talegaonkar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Bom369

..... promised or of money or other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms, patently, a lease is a contract whereunder the transferee accepts certain obligations. the transferee, or lessee or tenant, must, therefore, be one who is capable of contracting. an unregistered association is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Nivrutti Nana Waghmare Vs. Narayan Mahadeo Mokal and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Bom250

..... for setting aside the ex parta decree.'mr. shah appearing for the respondent has candidly conceded before me that the reference in the said judgment to appa bhima is a patent error because admittedly the so-called obstructionist against whom obstructionist notice was taken out by the respondent was appabhiva and not appa bhima. appa bhima was no doubt a tenant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

i.T.C. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : 1981(8)ELT690(Kar); 1980(2)KarLJ39

..... case, rejected the petition of the ground that the appellant-company therein had not filed an appeal under section 188 of the earlier sea customs act. on a letter's patent appeal by patel india (p) ltd. the appeal came to be dismissed. aggrieved by those orders of the high court, patel india (p) ltd., preferred civil appeal to the supreme .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Krishna Devi Nigam and ors. Vs. Shyam Babu Gupta and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Delhi165; 17(1980)DLT344; 1980(1)DRJ33; 1980RLR215

..... section 14(1)(e) of the rent act. in interpreting section 25a of the rent act in sarwan singh's case the court has thus to say that 'it is patent that by virtue of the first part of section 25a, the provisions of chapter iiia must prevail over the provisions of section 54 of the delhi rent act. the reason .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Nasur-ud-dIn Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Delhi9; ILR1980Delhi1047

v.s. deshpande, j. (1) the decision of this appeal turns upon the true distinction between the substantive part of sub-section (3) of section 63 of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (the act), and the relevant part of the proviso thereto. since they are to be carefully read, they are reproduced below: 'theprovisions of this chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits : 'provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in section 57 for the grant or countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one state are required to be countersigned by the state transport authority of another state or the regional transport authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the states. . . 'the petitioner-appellant is the holder of an inter-state stage carriage permit no. 1627 to ply between ghaziabad, u.p., and delhi issued by the regional transport authority, meerut, (rta). u.p., his application to the state transport authority, delhi, for countersignatures necessary for the operation of the inter-state route was rejected by the said authority on 13th november, 1975 on the ground that though 30 inter-state permits in all were to be issued and countersigned on this route and the permit holders had to be from u.p. and delhi in the proportion agreed between the two states, in fact there was no vacancy on the route inasmuch as all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Gian Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : 17(1980)DLT349

v.s. deshpande, c.j.(1) the appellant before us had filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 11th january, 1963 passed by mr. gulab l. ajwani, additional settlement commissioner, (with delegated powers of the chief settlement commissioner) purporting to reject the claim of the appellant for allotment of agricultural land in delhi, on the ground that the appellant was of punjabi extraction (an agriculturist from sindh as also west punjab now in pakistan), and was not entitled to allotment of agricultural land non the basis of a verified claim in delhi under rule 64 (a) of the displaced persons (compensation & reha.bilitation) rules, 1955. the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge. hence this appeal. rule 64 is as below : 'any land owner whose claim was registered under the east punjab refugees (registration of claims) act, 1948 (east punjab act viii of 1948) or under the patiala refugees (registration of land claims) ordinance, 2004 b.k. (ordinance no. x of 2004 bk) and who has been allotted land outside the states of punjab and patiala and east punjab state union shall be governed by the provisions hereinafter contained in this rule : (a) if such person had refused allotment of land made to him in the state of punjab or the patiala and east punjab states union, he shall be treated as a displaced person having no claim in respect of agricultural land and accordingly the provisions of rules 62 and 63 shall apply to him. provided that any person who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

A.R. Josri Vs. the State Bank of India, New Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : 17(1980)DLT518

prakash narain, j. (1) the main question which arises for determination is whether employees of the state bank of india entitled to involve the principles of natural justice and claim that reasonable opportunity should be granted to them before their services are terminated by way of punishment. a subsidiary question that arises is the interpretation to be put on the relevant rules in this case known as the state bank of india (sub-accountams and head cashiers) service rules. (2) the appellant was employed by the erstwhile imperial bank of india as a cashier and teller on december 24, 1951. he was . confirmed in that post with effect from january 1, 1953. the state bank of india act, 1955 was passed by the parliament with intent. inter alia, to transfer to the state bank of india the undertaking of the imperial bank of india. the services of the existing officers and employees of the imperial bank of india stood transferred to the state bank of india. that is how the appellant became an employee of the state bank of india. (3) the appellant was promoted to the post of head cashier and posted to dalhousie in august, 1963. in 1967 the bank authorities found that the appellant had permitted drawings without adequate stock to two firms. in other words, there was not sufficient security ensured by the appellant for granting drawing facilities to the said parties. according to the bank the appellant thus acted beyond the scope of his authority. accordingly, the appellant was placed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1980 (HC)

M. Arasan Chettiar and Ors. vs. S.P. Narasimhalu Naidu's Estate Trust, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-05-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Mad305; (1980)2MLJ303

..... the fact that the courts had granted stay, we grant the appellant in the letters patent appeal three months' time from this date to pay the price fixed by the court under section 9 (1) (b).as far as the civil revision petitions are concerned, we ..... 9 (2), then the suit or proceedings will proceed or any decree or order in ejectment that may have been passed therein shall stand.14. as far as the letters patent appeal no. 2 of 1980 is concerned, the date for the purpose of the third sentence in section 9 (1) (b) has been taken to be the date when the ..... court decided the minimum extent of the land for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant. in view of this, the letters patent appeal fails and is dismissed. the moment we have reached this conclusion, mr. m. srinivasan, appearing for the appellant in the letters ..... patent appeal, only wanted the fixation of time for payment of the amount, since, during the pendency of the further proceedings, he had obtained stay from the courts. having regard to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1980 (HC)

J.N. Sharma and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-05-1980

Reported in : [1980]123ITR90(Delhi)

..... property. the same had, thereforee, to be treated as capital investment. moreover, when the assessed has not till this date effected purchase of this property and this fact is so patent and not disputed, it had never any occasion to pay the amount of interest of rs. 55,515. its attempt thereforee, to claim deduction thereof must be held as misconceived .....

Tag this Judgment!


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