Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Year: 2002 Page 8 of about 1,367 results (0.012 seconds)

Dec 04 2002 (HC)

National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-04-2002

Reported in : (2003)IILLJ995Ori

r.k. patra, j. 1. both the writ petitions are analogous. the point involved in both of them is identical. therefore, for the sake of convenience, we have heard both the matters with the consent of counsel for parties. we are accordingly disposing of both of them by this common order.2. in w.p. (c) no. 3425 of 2002, the national aluminium company ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'nalco') seeks to assail the validity of the order dated july 29, 2002 (annexure-8) passed by the industrial tribunal (control), bhubaneswar in id case no. 305 of 2001. in w.p. (c) no. 3426 of 2002. 'nalco' seeks quashing of the order dated july 29, 2002 (annexure-8) passed by the said tribunal in i.d. case no. 308 of 2001. the tribunal while deciding a preliminary issue by the impugned orders has held that although after the judgment of the supreme court in steel authority of india ltd. v. national waterfront workers air 2001 sc 3527 : 2001-ii-llj-1087, the state government has become the 'appropriate government' for nalco, the present references having been made prior to the decision of the supreme court, the government of india which had made the references was the appropriate government and, therefore, the reference made by it which are pending consideration are valid.3. following are the disputes which have been referred to by the government of india to the industrial tribunal (central), bhubaneswar for adjudication.w.p. (c) no. 3425/2002 'whether 10% calculation to be made as per clause 4.3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2002 (HC)

State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Jayaram Mahapatra

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-04-2002

Reported in : 2003(I)OLR299

l. mohapatra, j.1. defendants are the plaintiffs before this court against a confirming judgment. the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for declaration that his date of birth is 2.11.1926 and as such he is entitled to be retained in service till 2.11.1984 under the prevailing service rules and for further direction to reinstate him in service.2. the case of the plaintiff-respondent is that he joined the service as inspector of co-operative societies as per order of the defendant no. 2 and on the date of retirement from service he was working as assistant registrar of co-operative societies. according to the plaintiff, his date, of birth is 2.11.1926 but due to wrong entry of the his date of birth in the gradation list prepared by the defendants he was prematurely retired about six years prior to his actual date of retirement. further case of the plaintiff is that the gradation list was prepared in the year 1958 and his date of birth was wrongly noted as 2.11.1920 instead of 2.11.1926 and coming to know about the same, he made a representation to the registrar, co-operative societies on 24.6.1959 requesting him for correction of the date of birth as reflected in the gradation list. the said representation was not attended to for a long time and ultimately the plaintiff submitted a memorial to the governor of orissa on 29.12.1973 and as there was no response, he had filed o.j.c. no. 868 of 1977 before this court wherein the defendants were directed by the high court to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2002 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-04-2002

Reported in : 2003(I)OLR163

p.k. tripathy, j.1. in this application under section 482, cr.p.c. petitioner prays to quash the order of cognizance passed against him in g.r. case no. 152 of 1998, which, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, has been wrongly typed as g.r. case no. 154 of 1998 in paragraph 1 of the application under section 482, cr.p.c. that g.r., case is pending in the court of s.d.j.m., dhenkanal. that case has been registered and cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 279/304-a, i.p.c.2. there is no dispute at the bar that on 16-3.1998 at about 6.15 p.m. there was an accident between a jeep bearing registration no. or-06-a-0414, on the national highway (n.h.- 42) as a result of which the driver and the pillion rider of the scooter suffered death, one instantaneously and the other a short time thereafter. it is also not disputed at the bar that the aforesaid jeep belongs to the rural water supply and sanitation department (in short. 'rwss') and was under the custody of the petitioner as the assistant engineer of kamakshyanagar, though the owner as per the record is the executive engineer of the said department. it is also not disputed at the bar that one maheswar patra by the time of accident was the driver of that government jeep. such facts are noted and mentioned in the report of the m.v.i, as well as in the case diary.3. the grievance of the petitioner is that the inspector- in-charge of dhenkanal town p.s. for no reason explained on record took over .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

Khalilur Rahman Vs. Smt. Noor Jahan Alias Noori

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2232

..... facts are normally not interfered with by this court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india unless such findings are shown to be patently illegal or perverse. no illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the authorities below. therefore, no interference is called for with the findings of facts recorded ..... ordinarily be interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the high court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. 25. the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

Monoranjan Das Vs. Pulak Dutta and 5 ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : 2004(1)CHN328

..... manifest illegality giving rise to a gross miscarriage of justice. in that view of the matter, intervention of this revisional court has become necessary in order to set right the patent wrong.19. to sum up, the ld. judge has failed to make a proper appreciation of the evidences, particularly the circumstantial evidence. he has failed to gauge the combined effect ..... the high court has undoubted jurisdiction to set aside and acquittal and to order retrial in exceptional cases to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice or to set right a patent wrong or error either of law or of fact (vide the decisions reported in air 1941 bomb. 410, 33 cwn 576, 28 cr.l.j. 523, 41 cr.l.n .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

Latoori Singh Vs. Chairman, Aligarh GramIn Bank

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC7

..... , unrestrained by any disciplinary control of the employer, the petitioner will be properly defended and the intention of the framers of the regulations in this regard is too obvious and patent to be ignored that they intended a right to be defended through an independent representative either from the same bank or from the other bank by the expression that 'he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

Tara Dutta, Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : [2003(1)JCR341(Jhr)]

..... as 'the bseb') shall pay the benefits.3. the aforesaid judgment of the learned single judge has been challenged by both the boards i.e. jseb and bseb in letters patent appeal no. 355 of 2002 and other analogous cases. in the said case, a division bench of this court vide order dated 26th september, 2002 while passed certain directions on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

Satya Narayan Pandey and Ors. and Citizens' and Cause Vs. the State of ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : [2005(4)JCR132(Jhr)]

..... on the subject.10. coming to the question relating to the non-fixation of any upper age limit, even as an one-time arrangement, we find that this also is patently contrary to sound public policy. it is commonly known that in all government appointments, the state fixes lower and upper age limits and that the relevant recruitment rules insist on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

E.K. Haj Mohammadmeera Sahib and Sons Vs. the Regional Director, Emplo ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : [2003(96)FLR1174]; (2003)ILLJ1041Mad; (2003)1MLJ497

r. jayasimha babu, j. 1. the employer is in appeal. the employer contends that the wages paid to casual labour employed in unloading raw hides and skins brought to its factory premises by the transporter is not an expenditure on which an employer is liable to pay any contribution. the employer claims that it is the driver of the lorry who brings workmen required for unloading the raw hides and skins, such unloading being done within the premises of the factory and that the transportation charges which includes the payments to be made to those labourers is paid to the driver who in turn disburses the wages to the casual labourers employed for the purpose of unloading. 2. the learned single judge has disbelieved the claim of the appellant that the casual labourer engaged for unloading were in fact hired by the driver of the lorry. the learned judge has taken the view that as the bringing of raw hides and skins to the appellant's factory premises is a continuing requirement in order to keep the appellant's factory functioning. the business of the appellant being that of processing of raw hides and skins, the engagement of workmen for unloading the raw hides and skins brought to its premises by lorries is a continuous requirement and the wages paid to such persons is part of the total wages paid out by the employer on which contribution is payable. 3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the witness who claimed that the money was paid to those workmen .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2002 (HC)

Sidhu Roadlines Regd. and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-02-2002

Reported in : (2003)134PLR280

..... a tax is compensatory or not is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than want is required for providing the facilities. it would be impossible to judge the compensatory nature of a tax by a meticulous test, and in the nature ..... . once, this purpose is established, the state has considerable discretion in the method, measure and amount of tax. the formula prescribed has not been shown to be resulting in any patent injustice and, therefore, the direction of the state cannot be interfered with. in fact, in g.k. krishnan's case (supra), the argument that the tax could be levied only ..... a tax is compensatory or not is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities and that we would be impossible to judge the compensatory nature of a tax by meticulous test, and in the ..... a tax is compensatory or not is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities.22. this view stands reaffirmed in g.k. krishan etc. v. state of tamil nadu and anr. etc., a.i .....

Tag this Judgment!


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