Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 1980 Page 6 of about 422 results (0.010 seconds)

Feb 12 1980 (SC)

Rallis India Ltd. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-12-1980

Reported in : AIR1980SC749; (1980)2SCC315; [1980]2SCR1028; [1980]45STC456a(SC); 1980(12)LC397(SC)

..... 50 s.t.c. 176 and daita suryanarayana and co. v. state of andhra pradesh 39 s.t.c. 500 that the exemption granted by the c.t.o. was 'patently wrong'. the high court however granted a certificate declaring the case to be a fit one for appeal to the supreme court under article 133(1)(c) of the constitution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1980 (HC)

Rajinder Singh Vs. Chakravarti, Malhotra and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-13-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Delhi48; 18(1980)DLT131

v.s. deshpande, c.j.(1) two questions arise in this appeal for decision : (1)can it be said that an applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of irregularity in the conduct of sale within the meaning of the proviso to rule 92(3) of the displaced persons(compensation& rehabilitation) rules, 1955 (the rules), if it is found that he was in fact not willing to make a bid for an amount higher than was fetched by the highest bid at the auction which was held; (2)whether the writ petitioners who were not parties to the sale proceedings have a locus standi to challenge an order confirming the sale which was held in those proceedings ?(2) the premises which are a part of the compensation pool constituted under section 14 of the displaced persons (compensation & rehabilitation) act, 1954 are occupied by the petitioners (respondents herein) as also by the appellant before us. an auction sale of the premises was first held on 12-9-1966. in the proclamation of sale the premises were wrongly described as being situated in faiz ganj, while in fact they were situated in faiz road. on 11-9-1966 one balbir singh sent a telegram intending to have the auction sale postponed. subsequently, balbir singh in his examination as an objector in the proceedings for setting aside the sale deposed that he could not locate the site of the premises by the description given in the sale proclamation and, thereforee, was denied an opportunity to bid at the auction sale. balbir singh and three other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1980 (HC)

The Official Receiver, Coimbatore Vs. S.A. Ramaswami Gounder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-15-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Mad269

..... other respondent in s. a. 1606 of 1963, which was allowed by this court on 28-4-1977. aggrieved against the said judgment the petitioner purported to file a letters patent appeal before this court on the basis of leave granted by this court while allowing the second appeal. on the office pointing out that the, letters ..... patent appeal is not competent in view of section 100-a, c. p code as amended by central act 104 of 1976, the petitioner realised that he cannot maintain the appeal. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1980 (HC)

Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-15-1980

Reported in : 1980CENCUS436D,1981(8)ELT27(Cal)

..... the appeal was invited by post, the post office being the agent of the authorities, the appeal was sent within the time and therefore, the collector and the government were patently wrong in holding that the appeal before the collector was time barred'. thus, the learned judges held that by reason of the conduct of the authorities the post office became .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1980 (HC)

Karnail Singh and ors. Vs. Kapur Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H202

..... , on which ad valorem court-fee has been paid, i, still pending decision?'2. the learned single judge, against whose judgment the present appeal under clause x of the letters patent has been filed, has on the basis of a division bench judgment of the lahore high court in budhuram v. niamat rai air 1923 lah 632, held that a fixed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1980 (HC)

Sada Singh Vs. the State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H222

order1. this order will dispose of 27 civil writs nos. 415, 498, 775, 785, 1478, 1479, 1489, 1492, 1513, 1533, 1534, 1548, 1581, 1606, 1661, 1884, 1817, 2164 of 1977; 2658 of 1978; 267, 585, 812, 3698, 3920, 4048, 4332 and 4575 of 1979 as common questions are involved therein.2. the petitioners in all the writs are residents of mohali and madanpur which fell in the controlled area under the punjab new capital (periphery) control act 1952, (hereinafter the act). they made constructions in the controlled area without obtaining permission of the deputy commissioner under section 5 of the act. notices were thereupon issued to them under s. 12(2) of the act to show cause why the unauthorised constructions made by them should not be demolished. the petitioners raised objections. the deputy commissioner, vide order dated december 3/6 1976, overruled the same and directed the demolition of the unauthorised constructions. the petitioners have filed the writs challenging this order of the dy. commissioner. in civil writ petitions nos. 1489 and 1684 of 1977, the peti4oners did apply to the deputy commissioner on august 9, 1971, to raise constructions but the permission was refused on october 19, 1971. in civil writ petitions nos. 415 and 1606 of 1977 the petitioners applied for such permission on september 24, 1968, but no order was passed within a period of three months and their applications were returned on january 6, 1969 and january 7, 1969 respectively.3. section 12(2) of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1980 (HC)

Brij Mohan Vs. the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh an ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H236

..... section 8-a of the act as also the one passed under section 5 of the eviction act, within one month from today.26. as regards letters patent appeal no, 102 of 1977, the matter is remanded to the learned single judge to decide civil writ petition no. 1419 of 1974 on merits in ..... any consideration of the point in depth. with respect, i hold that in neither of these cases, the law is correctly laid down.24. in letters patent appeal no. 101 of 1977, the tenant-appellant's success in getting a finding that a lessee is not only entitled to be heard before an order ..... at order is passed.20. that the estate officer was alive to the right of a lessee to be heard is apparent from the fact that in letters patent appeal no. 101 of 1977 arising from civil writ petition no. 1452 of 1974 (brij mohan v. the chief administrator, union territory, chandigarh and others), ..... but his appeal was dismissed by the chief administrator, chandigarh, vide his order dated l5th april, 1974, annexure p-3. again unlike the appellant-tenant in letters patent appeal no. 101 of 1977, the appellant-tenant herein had availed his right of appeal against the order, annexure p-4, passed against him on 19th march, 1974 ..... 10 of the act.2. before proceeding to consider the proposition posed above, it may be useful to have a few facts relevant to each letters patent appeal. in letters patent appeal no. 101 of 1977, the appellant tenant too was furnished with a copy of the show-cause notice sent to his landlord. faqir chand, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1980 (HC)

Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H282

d.s. tewatia, j.1. the sole question that falls for determination in this letters patent appeal is as to whether the action of the estate officer, union territory, chandigarh, respondent no. 2, in resuming the site in question on which house no. 1515 at sector .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1980 (HC)

Shyamkant Wamanrao Pawar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-19-1980

Reported in : 1980CriLJ1388

..... to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath and if this is not done, then obviously the order passed issuing the process is patently in violation of the mandatory requirements of the proviso to section 202(2) of the criminal procedure code. in this view of the matter, we have no other alternative but to quash .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1980 (HC)

Anil Anantrao Lokhande Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-20-1980

Reported in : 1981CriLJ125; 1980MhLJ849

..... to the medical examination by a medical practitioner for the purpose of extraction of blood from their persons. the orders passed by the two magistrates in the present petitions were patently illegal and without jurisdiction and were rightly set aside by the learned additional sessions judge'.30. it is quite clear from these observations that it was not necessary for the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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