Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 7 of about 108 results (0.072 seconds)

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

Hira Tikkoo Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3648; JT2004(5)SC231; 2004(4)SCALE468; (2004)6SCC765

..... 161 consentees gave their affidavits. some of the non-consentees again approached the high court challenging the new industrial policy of 1990 by filing fresh petitions and others filed letters patent appeals. in their petitions and appeals, they insisted on grant of relief of directing delivery of possession of the original plots allotted to them. the filing of this petition and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3690; 2004CriLJ3118; JT2004(Suppl1)SC186; 2004(4)SCALE577; (2004)10SCC616

..... to the inevitable conclusion that the accused was responsible for the rape and murder of the victim. though the judgment under challenge is one of acquittal, in view of the patently perverse conclusions arrived at by the high court, the same is indefensible and is set aside. the conviction as recorded by the trial court and the sentences imposed are restored .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

Sakatar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)36; 2004CriLJ2076; I(2004)DMC730SC; JT2004(Suppl1)SC147; 2004(4)SCALE529; (2004)11SCC291

n. santosh hegde, j. 1. the first appellant before us is the father of the second appellant and the third appellant is the wife of the first appellant. these appellants and three others who are sisters of second appellant herein were charged for offences punishable under sections 306 and 498a read with section 34 ipc before the additional sessions judge, ambala who after trial acquitted accused nos. 4 to 6 while convicted the appellants herein for offences punishable under sections 306 and 498a of the ipc read with section 34 ipc. the first appellant sakatar singh was sentenced for offence punishable under section 306 for four years ri and a fine of rs. 500/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further ri for three months, while he was sentenced for an offence punishable under section 498a for two years ri and a fine of rs. 200/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further ri for one month. the second appellant kirpal singh was sentenced for seven years ri for offence punishable under section 306 ipc and a fine of rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further ri for three months, he was also sentenced to two years ri under section 498a ipc and a fine of rs. 200/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further ri for one month. the third appellant smt. joginder kaur was sentenced to undergo three years ri for offence under section 306 and a fine of rs. 200/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further ri for one month. while .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2004 (SC)

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC346; 2004(3)BLJR1971; 2004CriLJ2050; (2004)2GLR1078; JT2004(Suppl1)SC94; 2004(4)SCALE375; (2004)4SCC158; 2004(2)LC1041(SC)

..... this case it was nobody's stand that the incident did not take place. that the conduct of investigating agency and the prosecutor was not bona fide, is apparent and patent.73. so far as non-examination of some injured relatives are concerned, the high court has held that in the absence of any medical report, it appears that they were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2004 (SC)

The Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

Reported in : JT2004(4)SC158; (2004)3MLJ132(SC); 2004(4)SCALE192; (2004)4SCC460; 2004(2)LC1300(SC)

..... bulk one, the same was contrary to the provisions of the bangalore development authority act (for short 'the act').6. aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred a letters patent appeal. a division bench of the high court dismissed the same holding that establishment of an industry cannot be termed as a step towards development of the bangalore metropolitan area .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2004 (SC)

Milkfood Ltd. Vs. Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)624; 2004(1)ARBLR613(SC); [2004]121CompCas581(SC); (2004)3CompLJ16(SC); 2004(4)CTC479; 110(2004)DLT778(SC); 2004(75)DRJ512; JT2004(4)SC393; (2004)3MLJ87(SC)

..... of justice and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. we are, however, of the opinion that the high court of delhi has rightly held that the letters patent appeal was not maintainable. civil appeal no. 9672 of 2003 is, therefore, allowed and civil appeal nos.9673-74 of 2003 are dismissed. no costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2004 (SC)

MaIn Pal and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2158; 2004CriLJ2036; JT2004(4)SC273; 2004(4)SCALE178; (2004)10SCC692

..... unusual manner that really is not determinative because different persons react differently even in similar situations.10. on a bare perusal of the trial court's judgment one thing is patently noticeable. the trial court has merely referred to the arguments advanced and has then come to abrupt conclusions without even indicating any plausible or relevant reasons, therefore. merely coming to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2004 (SC)

Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2036; JT2004(4)SC264; 2004(4)SCALE201; (2004)6SCC331

..... before the patna high court which was marked as cwjc no. 5004/2002. by an order dated 7.10.2002, the said writ petition was allowed where against a letters patent appeal was filed by the appellant herein which was dismissed by a division bench of the high court. hence this appeal by special leave.submissions:5. mr. amarendra sharan, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2004 (SC)

State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2081; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)46; 2004(2)BLJR912; 2004CriLJ1825; (2004)3GLR2242; JT2004(4)SC129; 2004(4)KarLJ484; 2004(2)KLT342(SC); 2004(4)SCALE115; (2004)4SCC684

..... instances and the antecedents involving or concerning those persons. if they feel that the presence or participation of any person in the meeting or congregation would be objectionable, for some patent or latent reasons as well as past track record of such happenings in other places involving such participants necessary prohibitory orders can be passed. quick decisions and swift as well ..... the need to protect and preserve law and order. the court was not acting as an appellate authority over the decision of the official concerned. unless the order passed is patently illegal and without jurisdiction or with ulterior motives and on extraneous considerations of political victimisation by those in power, normally interference should be the exception and not the rule. the ..... peace and tranquility without lapse of time acting emergently, if warranted, giving thereby paramount importance to societal needs by even overriding temporarily private rights keeping in view public interest, is patently inbuilt in section 144 of the code.11. the stand of the respondent before the high court was that the adm who passed the order was not covered by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2004 (SC)

State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and ors. Vs. Ganesh Cha ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-24-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2179; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)729; 2004(2)BLJR863; 2004CriLJ2011; 2004(2)CTC467; JT2004(4)SC52; 2004(I)OLR621; RLW2004(2)SC218; 2004(3)SCALE608; (2004)8SCC40

..... complaint and the materials on record are there, we do not think it necessary to go into them because of the inherent improbabilities of the complainant's case and the patent mala fides involved. it is no doubt true that the threshold interference by exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the code has to be in very rare cases, and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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