Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 30 results (0.039 seconds)

Sep 19 2005 (HC)

Khushal Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-19-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj38; RLW2006(1)Raj599; 2005(4)WLC606

..... , were wholly unwarranted and in our considered view, there was no need at all to go to the circumstances like statements of witnesses pw-4 and 9 etc. when a patent fact was proved to its hilt on the basis of documentary evidence, there was no requirement of evaluating oral evidence. it is rather interesting to note that how and in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (HC)

Jagir Singh Vs. Ranjeet Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj105; RLW2005(4)Raj2941; 2005(4)WLC447

..... some of the witnesses .examined on behalf of the plaintiff and finding some discrepancies therein returned findings on the issue in favour of the defendants. it is a case of patent illegality and not of returning findings of fact based upon evidence. we have already held above that defendants had to lead some evidence to prove that they had no knowledge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2005 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh Sharma and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-09-2005

Reported in : I(2006)ACC673

..... were its employees. both were interested witnesses. the nagar mahapalika did not produce even a single independent witness to support its version. the tribunal and the high court fell into patent error in preferring the evidence of two wholly interested witnesses to that of abdul khalique who was an independent witness and whose presence on the spot could not be doubted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhagan Lal Joshi and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-18-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR272]; 2005(4)WLC786

..... a jurisdiction fact.12. from perusing the judgment and award dtd. 14.2.2003 annex. 5 passed by the learned labour court, bhilwara it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned labour court are perverse. therefore the same do not require ..... the constitution of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. while exercising the powers under article 227 of the constitution of india, the high court does not act as court of appeal.11. the high court's power of ..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the labour court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. the findings of facts recorded by the labour court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity....10. apart from that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2005 (HC)

Prakash Chand SaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-04-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj149; 2005(4)WLC550

..... statement of a witness under section164 as a substantive evidence in coming to the conclusion that he had been won over.' in our considered view, learned trial judge committed a patent error of law in relying upon the statements made by pw-3 rameshwar lal and pw-7 sanwar mai before the magistrate under section 164 cr.p.c.22. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2005 (HC)

Assistant Engineer (the) and anr. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-19-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)WLC16

..... jurisdiction fact.19. from perusing the judgment and award dtd. 13.5.2005 (annex. 3) passed by the learned labour court, sri ganganagar it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned labour court are perverse. therefore the same does not require ..... the constitution of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. while exercising the powers under article 227 of the constitution of india, the high court does not act as court of appeal.18. the high court's power of ..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the labour court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. the findings of facts recorded by the labour court do not duffer from any basic illegality or infirmity.17. apart from that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2005 (HC)

Rajpal Sharma and anr. Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Raj313; RLW2005(4)Raj2322; 2005(4)WLC332

..... to contest students election is not a fundamental right. para-4 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:'we are of the view that the high court fell into patent error in holding that once the university admits a student, the right to contents the students union election is a part of the right of education and as such is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (HC)

Ugam Raj Vs. Civil Judge (Sd) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj517

..... , as such the plaintiff was interested to be continue with suit and to get it disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1950. the court below patently misread the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the act of 2001 while reaching at the conclusion that the act of 1950 stood repealed, the act of ..... act of 2001 with liberty to file fresh proceedings under the act of 2001, as such finding given by the court below, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is patently erroneous and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.6. no reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondents plaintiff. however, a preliminary objection is raised to the effect that ..... given for issue in question is that the court below misread the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the act of 2001, and, therefore, committed an error patent while holding that the suit in hand is required to be decided in accordance with the provisions of transfer of property act only. it is contended by the counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2005 (HC)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Charan Singh a ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-07-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2293; 2005(4)WLC98

..... of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its finding or order is clearly perverse of patently unreasonable.9. it may be stated that high court's power under article 226/227 of the constitution of india should be exercised only when there is dereliction of duty .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2005 (HC)

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-17-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2761; 2005(3)WLC508

..... mentioned above, the, findings of facts recorded by the learned labour court are not based on correct appreciation of entire material available on record and the same are erroneous, perverse, patently unreasonable and based on no material or evidence on record. there is an error apparent on the face of the record. therefore, the findings of the learned tribunal suffer from ..... of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings or order is clearly perverse or patently unreasonable.64. since as observed hereinabove, the findings recorded by the learned labour court suffer from an error apparent on the face on record and are perverse and ..... patently unreasonable, therefore, the same are not sustainable.65. for the reasons mentioned above, the instant case writ petition is allowed and the judgment and award dtd. 2.8.2001 annex. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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