Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 2002 Page 7 of about 1,367 results (0.012 seconds)

Jan 22 2002 (SC)

Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and anr. Vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-22-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC960; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)267; 2002(2)AWC918(SC); 2002(50)BLJR772; (2002)2BOMLR196; JT2002(2)SC24; (2002)2MLJ115(SC); 2002MPLJ589(SC); RLW2002(2)SC313; (2002)3SCC676; [

..... agreement for sale is barred by limitation. it is against the said judgment of the letters patent bench, the appellants are in appeal before us.the first question that arises for consideration is whether the defendant-appellants are entitled to protect their possession of the suit property ..... dismissed the suit. the learned single judge of bombay high court dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondents. however, the letters patent bench allowed the letters patent appeal filed by the plaintiff- respondents. the view taken by the letters patent bench was that the protection as regards possession is not available to the defendant-appellants as the suit for specific performance of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2002 (TRI)

Kantilal Dahyabhai Patadia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Jan-22-2002

Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ88CAT

..... 25 years. he has contended that when the applicant first appeared in 1980 for the examination, he was already 29 years of age and in the circumstances, there was a patent error either while measuring or recording applicant's height in the year 1981, which had resulted in depriving him joining the ips cadre for no fault of his. his contention .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2002 (HC)

Prabhakar Sadasheo Nandanwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-22-2002

Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR710; 2002(4)MhLj664

..... the division bench. assuming that both the petitions are dismissed, a candidate belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe will have further opportunity to approach this court under letters patent appeal jurisdiction whereas such opportunity is denied to a candidate belonging to the nomadic tribe. restricted reading of clause 44 to rule 18, thus, results in hostile discrimination between two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2002 (HC)

Mulayam Singh and anr. Vs. Budhuwa Chamar and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-22-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT140; 2002(2)MPLJ480

k.k. lahoti, j.1. this appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in writ petition no. 5279/2000, dated 24-9-2001 allowing the petition and quashing the order dated 17-7-2000 passed in revision no. r.n./11-1/r/513/93 board of revenue, gwalior (mp) and order passed by the commissioner, sagar division, sagar in revision no. 222/a-6/91-92, dated 30th march, 1993 confirming the order of additional collector, district chhattarpur in revision case no. 33/a-6/89-90, dated 28-12-1991 were restored.2. the facts of the case are that the respondent budhuwa chamar belongs to scheduled caste. he was landless person. he was allotted a piece of land on 3-11-1973 by patta (annexure a-1) under the provisions of madhya pradesh land revenue code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code'). the patta was granted by tehsildar, laundi, district chhattarpur. it was a temporary patta. the conditions no. 7(1) and (4) of this patta prohibit transfer of the land granted by the patta. however, condition no. 14 of the patta provides for conferral of bhumiswami rights on fulfilment of certain conditions and further grant of patta in the prescribed form 'u'. subsequently, petitioner was declared bhumiswami in the year 1982 and accordingly recorded in the revenue record. the appellants, who are brothers of respondent budhuwa chamar, got the land transferred in their names from the respondent without prior permission of the collector. respondent moved an application before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2002 (HC)

Patel Ratilal Maganbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : (2003)1GLR562

..... . patel has drawn our attention to the judgment of the division bench (coram : mr. k. g. balakrishnan, c.j. & mr. justice j. n. bhatt) dated 2-9-1999 in letters patent appeal no. 1153 of 1998 in special civil application no. 6265 of 1998 in the case of legal heirs of mithabhai mavjibhai v. state of gujarat. before the division bench ..... jayant patel, j.1. in the present letters patent appeal, the main question arises for the consideration of this court is that whether this court should exercise the powers under article 226 of the constitution of india at the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2002 (TRI)

Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC544

..... interpretative note to rule 9(1)(c) provides that the royalties and licence fees referred to in rule 9(1)(c) may include, among other things, payments in respect to patents, trademarks and copyrights. however, the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation shall not be added to the price actually paid or payable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2002 (TRI)

Kaikhosrou K. Framji Vs. Consulting Engineering Services

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : (2002)110CompCas482

..... a consent order is passed, the same cannot be challenged on any ground including the ground on jurisdiction. kulki leather (p.) ltd v. t.n.k. govindaraju chetiar & co. - letters patent appeal 123 of 2001, dated 28-8-2001. the facts of that case are: in a proceeding under section 235 of the act, the parties agreed to settle the disputes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2002 (HC)

D. Surender Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Represented

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)351; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)419; 2002CriLJ2611

..... against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (3) where the discretion exercised by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2002 (SC)

T. Mohan Vs. Kannammal and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : JT2002(2)SC163; (2002)10SCC82

..... by the plaintiff for the purpose of the suit.7. we may clarify that the finding of the high court that the agreement was insufficiently stamped is erroneous. it is patent on a perusal of the relevant provisions in the karnataka taxation and certain other laws (amendment) act, 1979 (karnataka act no. 21 of 1979) by which the karnataka stamp act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2002 (HC)

Uma Charan Mohanty Vs. Republic of India

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : 2002(I)OLR470

m. papanna, j.1. this is an application under section 389 of the code of criminal procedure filed by the petitioner (appellant) seeking suspension of order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned special judge (cbi), bhubaneswar in t.r. no. 45 of 1993 under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (in short 'the p.c. act.')2. the petitioner was put up on trial before the learned special judge (cbi), bhubaneswar on the accusation that during his incumbency as branch manager of koraput panchabati grarnya bank at kenduguda during the year 1991 he demanded as well as accepted bribe of rs. 900/- in total from the loanees such as pitamber lim, dayanidhi lima, samuel lima and ghani misal out of loan amount under i.r.d.a. scheme implemented by the b.d.o., padampur. after trial, the learned special judge (c.b.i.), by a judgment dt. 12.10.2001 convicted the petitioner under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the p.c. act and sentenced him to undergo r.i. for one year and to pay a fine of rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo r.i. for three months on each count which is under challenge in the aforesaid appeal. while admitting the appeal on 16.10.2001, this court also directed the petitioner to be released on bail and stayed realisation of the fine amount. subsequently, the petitioner moved the present application under section 389, cr. p.c. seeking suspension of the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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