Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 8 of about 108 results (0.072 seconds)

Mar 23 2004 (SC)

Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia Vs. Shashikant N. Ruia and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-23-2004

Reported in : 2004(6)ALD1(SC); 2004(3)SCALE580; (2004)5SCC272; 2004(2)LC1218(SC)

..... several grounds. the trial court rejected the objections raised by the sureties and this order was confirmed by a single judge of the high court. an appeal under the letters patent was dismissed in limine. the three sureties moved this court by special leave petition in which leave was granted to them. one of the sureties died even before the record .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2004 (SC)

M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh Vs. M.P. Electricity Board

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Reported in : [2004(101)FLR670]; JT2004(3)SC423; (2004)IILLJ470SC; 2004(3)SCALE383; (2004)9SCC755; 2004(2)SLJ414(SC); (2004)2UPLBEC1313

..... as writ petition no. 7255 of 2000. the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of the high court where against the appellant herein preferred a letters patent appeal marked as letters patents appeal no. 34 of 2001. by reason of the impugned judgment dated 11.9.2001, the division bench dismissed the said appeal.high court

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2004 (SC)

Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3892; 2004(2)AWC1721(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN152; [2004(3)JCR85(SC)]; JT2004(4)SC127; (2004)3MLJ72(SC); 2004(3)SCALE481; (2004)3SCC682

..... by writ of certiorari. if it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. as to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the high court under article 227 of the constitution also, it has been held in surya dev rai (supra) that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2004 (SC)

Narayanan Vs. Kumaran and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1711(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN133; 98(2004)CLT286(SC); 2004(3)CTC130; [2004(2)JCR198(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC358; 2004(2)KLT312(SC); (2004)4MLJ60(SC); RLW2004(3)SC386; 20

..... court. the high court of kerala in the instant case has not framed any substantial question of law as required by section 100 c.p.c. and has committed a patent error in disposing of the civil misc. appeal. the existence of a substantial question of law is thus the sine qua non for exercise of the jurisdiction under the provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2004 (SC)

Thiagarajan and ors. Vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1913; 2004(4)ALD8(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)446; 2004(2)AWC1988(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN161; 2004(2)CTC354; [2004(2)JCR296(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC54; 2004(2)KLT358(SC); (2004

..... formulated by the high court. since the high court has not adverted to the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission, the high court has committed a patent error in disposing of the second appeal. it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the high court while formulating substantial questions of law at a later stage .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2004 (SC)

Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Timblo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1884; 2004(2)AWC1706(SC); 2004(1)CTLJ351(SC); [2004(2)JCR188(SC)]; 2004(3)SCALE443; (2004)4SCC64; 2004(2)LC857(SC)

d.m. dharmadhikari, j. 1. the dispute in these appeals between the appellant as iron ore raising/purchase contractor and the respondents who claim to have been duly appointed as new contractors by the mine owner is regarding their rival claims to exclusively run the iron ore mine which is the subject matter of the suit instituted by the new contractors.2. the appellant company [shortly referred to as the old contractor] claims right to run the mine on the basis of their alleged existing contract with the mining-lease-owner. according to the appellant, the contract with them was renewed by acceptance of their offer of renewal and consequent conduct of permitting them to work the mine on periodical payments of price in accordance with the original terms of the contract.3. the case of the contesting respondent nos. 1 & 2, who are plaintiffs before the trial court [shortly referred to as the new contractors], is that the mining-lease-owner has refused to renew the contract with the appellant and has entered into a fresh contract on payment of higher price with them.4. the trial court granted an ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the new contractors. after hearing both the parties at length, the ex parte interim injunction earlier granted under order 39 rules 1 & 2 of the code of civil procedure was vacated by the trial court.5. aggrieved by the order of the trial court refusing to confirm the order of temporary injunction, the new contractors appealed to the high court. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2004 (SC)

Esher Singh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-15-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)270; JT2004(3)SC391; 2004(3)SCALE267; (2004)11SCC585

..... a-2 had strong animosity and motive so far as deceased is concerned. the movement in the close proximity of the house of deceased joga singh clearly brings out the patent object and conspiracy has been well established. according to the prosecution version, two persons entered, fired and killed. the search for the accused started immediately when people came running. one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2004 (SC)

Dani Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : 2004(1)BLJR816; 2004CriLJ3328; JT2004(3)SC367; 2004(3)SCALE245

..... blood with hay and threw them to the well of pw-6. when the accusation of looting, punishable under section 380 ipc has not been established, the exaggeration is clearly patent. actual killing has not been attributed to anybody in particular. there was considerable delay in lodging the fir. when the accused persons have stated to have declared that no other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (SC)

Mukand Ltd. Vs. Mukand Staff and Officers' Association

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3905; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)839; 2004(2)CTC430; [2004(101)FLR219]; JT2004(3)SC474; 2004(2)KLT1(SC); (2004)IILLJ327SC; (2004)4MLJ6(SC); 2004(3)SCALE116; (2004)10SCC460; 2

..... said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. it may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2004 (SC)

Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak and ors. Vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1893; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)432; 2004(2)AWC1784(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN60; 98(2004)CLT276(SC); (2004)2GLR1335; [2004(2)JCR272(SC)]; (2004)137PLR303; 2004(3)SCALE172; (2

s.h. kapadia, j. 1. appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit bearing no. 116 of 1968 in the court of civil judge, narol for a declaration that they were owners of ancestral house site land bearing g.p. no.497 in sarkhej, district ahmedabad and for recovery of possession thereof from the respondents (defendants) and also for permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with their possession over the disputed land. according to the appellants, the suit land was ancestral property belonging to father-in-law of vasantiben (appellant no. 1) and after his death the property came in possession of her husband. according, to the appellants, in the lifetime of the husband of appellant no. 1, the respondents used to tell the husband of appellant no. 1 to allow them to make construction on the land. according to appellant no. 1, her husband did not permit the respondents to make construction till his death, i.e. six years prior to the institution of the suit. that even before his demise, the respondents used to tell appellant no. 1 to donate the land to the community which she refused and soon thereafter the respondents started constructing a compound wall without her permission. in the circumstances, she filed a suit on 25th march, 1968 to prevent the respondents from disturbing her possession.2. the respondents inter alia denied in the suit that the husband of appellant no. 1 was in possession of the suit land till he died or that after his demise, the appellants were in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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