Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 11 of about 154 results (0.038 seconds)

Mar 31 2005 (HC)

Manoj Gulabrao Patel Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR68

..... general at the time of admission is suffice to protect the appellant till the final disposal of the criminal prosecution pending as of today. therefore, we dispose of the letters patent appeal by the following order: if the prosecution which was in existence and pending, when the commissioner passed the impugned order, is yet pending as on today then the statement ..... be passed by the commissioner though costs is not being enforced as against the petitioner. in fact, on such statement being made the appellant ought to have withdrawn the letters patent appeal. this shows that the government was not desirous of implementing the said impugned order and instead they desire to proceed for action in accordance with law including action for ..... petitioner is acquitted. therefore, the single judge rejected the petition in limine by order dated 4th june, 2002. as against this the present letters patent appeal is filed. however, at the time of admission of this letters patent appeal the statement was made by the advocate general that the respondent will not enforce the order dated 12th april, 2002 requiring licensee to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (HC)

P.B. Samant Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR345; 2005(4)BomCR684

..... petition is not maintainable, because on the same ground, the petitioner had filed another petition before this court, which was dismissed. against that judgment, the petitioner had filed a letters patent appeal, which was also dismissed by the division bench. the petitioner, aggrieved by the said judgment, filed a special leave petition in the supreme court, which was also dismissed. therefore ..... the respondent. the admitted facts are that the petitioner filed the writ petition before this court, and on dismissal of that writ petition, he filed a letters patent appeal. after dismissal of the letters patent appeal, the petitioner preferred a special leave petition under article 136 of the constitution of india in the supreme court. that petition was also dismissed. the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (HC)

Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Anurag Anilkumar Rathi ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR879; 2005(4)MhLj97; [2006]66SCL255(Bom)

..... taken by the applicants under section 13(4) of the act, they are to approach debts recovery tribunal under section 17 of the said act. thus, the impugned order is patently illegal and cannot be sustained. it is however made clear that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are free to raise their contentions before debts recovery tribunal and the debts recovery .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2005 (HC)

Sunda Associates Vs. Ajit Kisanlal Agarwal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-29-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR69; 2005(5)BomCR428; 2005(3)MhLj362

..... for only a limited purpose as indicated therein. consequently, under the very scheme of provisions enacted in chapter viii of the act and the avowed legislative purpose obviously made known patently by those very provisions, the competent authority can by no means be said to be 'court' for any and every purpose and that too for availing of or exercising powers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2005 (HC)

Noorjahan Wd/O. Altaf Ahemd, Vs. Sadrunisa Wd/O. Haji Fatehulla Khan ( ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-24-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR640; 2005(3)MhLj10

..... single judge by an order dated 28.9.1992 directed the proposed amendment to be considered only after the plaintiff's petition for leave under clause xii of the letters patent was decided. (c). the plaintiff's petition for leave was filed on 8.10.1992 and the plaintiff re-lodged the laint. however, leave under clause xxii of the letters ..... patent was refused by jhunjhunwala, j. (as he then was). the suit was thereafter given its present number. 5. in the circumstances, the present suit is concerned only with the bombay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2005 (HC)

Welcomgroup Searock Vs. Searock Hotel Employees' Union and Anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-24-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR74; 2006(2)BomCR899; [2005(106)FLR692]; (2005)IIILLJ483Bom; 2005(3)MhLj191

..... to the definition in section 2(m) of the factories act, 1948 which specifically excludes the establishment of an hotel. in that view of the matter, the industrial court was patently in error in holding that the provisions of chapter v-b of the industrial disputes act, 1947 were attracted. 7. in the decision in poona industrial hotel (supra), the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2005 (HC)

Vishwas Shankarrao Joshi Vs. Bank of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-23-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR339; 2005(5)BomCR419; [2006(107)FLR52]; (2005)IIILLJ54Bom; 2005(3)MhLj640

..... -b since his last drawn salary cannot be quantified by this court in its extremely limited jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution.7. the question involved in this letters patent appeal, centers around section 17-b of the i. d. act and, therefore, it would be useful to reproduce this section in order to consider and appreciate the submissions advanced ..... as contemplated under this section. this question was raised in view of the observations made by this court in the order dated 22-11-2000 impugned in the instant letters patent appeal, denying to pass appropriate order under section 17-b, holding that no duty is cast by this section on the high court to make an order for payment of ..... d.b. bhosale, j.1. the question raised in this letters patent appeal is where there is an award directing reinstatement of a workman is passed by labour court, which is being challenged by way of writ petition in high court, and ..... rs. 1000/- per month till hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. needless to express that the appellant shall have a liberty to withdraw the said amount. the letters patent appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. no costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2005 (HC)

M.G. Bhide Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.,

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-23-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)MhLj659

..... certiorari;(b) if it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be faulted with as a patent error.(c) the jurisdiction to exercise supervisory powers is not available for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2005 (HC)

Tata Infomedia Limited Vs. Tata Press Employees' Union and Anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-23-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR559; [2006(108)FLR890]; 2005(3)MhLj105

..... allowed a revision application filed by the employer. a petition under article 226 filed by the workman was dismissed by the single judge of the high court. however, a letters patent appeal was allowed by the division bench against which the employer went in appeal to the supreme court. the complaint in that case was inter alia under item l(a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (HC)

ishwardas S/O Damodhardas Sindhi Vs. Smt. Shantabai W/O Sewakram Chaur ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR442; 2005(3)MhLj260

..... not be exercised in a routine manner, but there are no limitations and restrictions on the reviewing authority to exercise its power to correct its finding of fact which are patently erroneous and have resulted in failure of justice. the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on these observations so as to support his contention that the additional collector ..... authority given in the review application, as also that of the learned single judge in dismissing the review application. he submitted that the appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent appeal is not maintainable against the judgment/order of the learned single judge as per the parameters laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in the judgment delivered in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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