Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1964 Page 3 of about 365 results (0.057 seconds)

Nov 25 1964 (HC)

Reeta Rani Singh Vs. Raghuraj Singh

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-25-1964

Reported in : AIR1965All380

..... matter our answer to the question is in the affirmative that this court has jurisdiction in the exercise of powers under clause 12 of the letters patent (allahabad) to appoint guardian of a minor and pass orders with regard to the custody of such minor. let the papers be returned to the ..... over such persons alone over which it is being exercised by the calcutta high court. it has been expressly provided in clause 12 of the letters patent of this court that this power is to be exercised with respect to (all) 'persons and estates of infants, idiots, and lunatics within the north ..... lunatics.' their lordships of the privy council, therefore, treated this matter of infants as a special jurisdiction conferred upon the high court by the letters patent apart from its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and there is no reason why the same should not apply to this court and the power given in clause ..... part of ordinary original civil jurisdiction only.in hamid hasan v. banwarl lal roy air 1947 p c 90, their lordships while dealing with the letters patent of the calcutta high court, observed as follows:-- 'clause 12 defines the extent of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction. later clauses confer upon the high ..... 2. we are, after hearing learned counsel at some length, unable to agree with him for the following reasons:-- 3. clause 12 of the letters patent of this court falls under the sub-head 'civil jurisdiction' and it is plain that this power had been given to this court in the exercise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1964 (SC)

Penu Balakrishna Iyer and ors. Vs. Ariya M. Ramaswami Iyer and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-06-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC195; [1964]7SCR49

..... of the conduct of the appellants in coming to this court without attempting to obtain the leave of the learned single judge of file a letters patent appeal before a division bench of the madras high court. therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the decree passed in second appeal, ..... the grant of special leave on the ground that the appellant has not moved for letters patent appeal, and it appears that the said ground is argued and rejected on the merits and consequently special leave is granted, then it would not ..... against a second appellate decision should be revoked on the ground that the appellant had not applied for leave under the relevant clause of the letters patent it is necessary to bear in mind one relevant fact. if at the stage when special leave is granted, the respondent caveator appears and resists ..... of a single judge. normally, an application for special leave against a second appellate decision would not be granted unless the remedy of a letters patent appeal has been availed of. in fact, no appeal against second appellate decisions appears to be contemplated by the constitution as is evident from the fact ..... mr. rajagopal sastri on behalf of the respondents. he contends that it was open to the appellants to apply for leave to file a letters patent appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge and since the appellants have not adopted that course, it is not open to them to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1964 (HC)

Jagdish Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-20-1964

Reported in : AIR1965P& H129

..... , in support of the contention that these provisions of law fully empower the high court to make rule 9; reference has further been made to clause 27 of the letters patent which also authorises this court to make rules like the one in question. for the purpose of showing that the publication of this rule in vol. v of the high ..... . of the high court rules and orders purports merely to contain rules relating to proceedings in the high court made under the authority of the constitution of india, the letters patent and the acts of parliament, without clearly disclosing as to under which precise law, delegating legislative power to this court, has rule 9 in question been made. this contention has ..... the rule was construed to have a mandatory effect. it was also observed there that such a rule could be made by this court under clause 27 of the letters patent. (4) the appellant's learned counsel in that case relied on narsingh dass v. mangal dubey, ilr 5 all 163 (fb) for the contention that courts while construing statutes like .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1964 (HC)

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. His Lordship the Honourable Mr. Justice T ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-09-1964

Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR214; 1965MhLJ414

..... court, itself so far as the question of exercise of judicial functions is concerned.16. even looking to the terms of clause 36 of the letters patent the same conclusion would follow. clause 36 saysany function which is hereby directed to be performed by the said high court of judicature at bombay, in ..... . chari sought to draw a distinction between a judge presiding in a court and the court itself. he pointed out that clause 36 of the letters patent speaks of a judge whereas article 226 of the constitution makes no reference to a judge but only to the high court. no doubt, the distinction ..... be modified by any provision of the constitution or by any law made by the appropriate legislature duly empowered by the constitution which now includes the letters patent. any judge of the bombay high court no less than a division bench or full bench of the high court may, therefore, perform all the ..... be performed by a single judge sitting on either side of the court.10. the combined effect of article 225 read with clause 36 of the letters patent is therefore, clear. after the constitution the respective powers of the judges in relation to the administration of justice remain the same as before the constitution ..... by an appropriate legislature.9. in order to find out what were the powers prior to the constitution we must tarn to clause 36 of the letters patent of this court. clause 36 declares that. any function which is hereby directed to be performed by the said high court of judicature at bombay, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1964 (HC)

Kapur Bhimber Union Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-30-1964

Reported in : (1966)ILLJ870P& H

..... commissioner. thus, there is hardly any other authoritative pronouncement in which a view contrary to the one expressed by the bench of this court in prem narain aggarwal case (letters patent appeal no. 2d of 1956) has been taken. we have not been, therefore, persuaded that there is any strong reason for not following the previous decision.6. sri gupta has ..... act. the bench affirmed the view expressed by my lord falshaw, j. (as he then was), against whose judgment the appeal had been brought under clause 10 of the letters patent which was disposed of by it. in a later case also in haji nadar ali khan v. union of india my lord falshaw, j., upheld the order made by the ..... the act and the scheme if the matter had been res integra but in a previous bench deoision of this court in prem narain aggarwala v. union of india (letters patent appeal no. 2d of 1956) decided on 13 february 1957, it was held that the liability to contribute to the fund commenced from 1 november 1952. under chap. v of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1964 (HC)

Bua Dass Kaushal Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-10-1964

Reported in : AIR1965P& H342

..... issues and sent the case back to the trial court for determination of those issues. the additional issues are in the following terms:1. whether the decision of the letters patent bench in civil writ no. 185 of 1956 operates as res judicata in the present suit? 2. whether the plea of res judicata has been waived by the state? (2 ..... not been afforded a reasonable opportunity and that the said petition was dismissed by bishan narain j., whose order was confirmed on letters patent appeal by bhandari c. j. and dulat j. after the decision of the letters patent bench the appellant instituted the present suit in which the same point is again agitated. the suit was dismissed by both the courts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1964 (HC)

Amichand Valanji and ors. Vs. G.B. Kotak and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-06-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234

..... . 60e of necessity records by implication the fact the his majesty in council thought it either necessary or expendient, or both , to extend the powers of the comptroller under the patents (emgergency) act, 1939, s. 3, in the manner stated in the regulation.................'clausion in l.j. has dealt with this question is some detail at p. 314:'......................... the order in ..... contained in serval clauses of the s. 3(2) to the satisfied that the attack against the validity of the sid section on the ground of excessive delegation of the patently unsutatinabe. not only is legislative policy broadly indicated in the provisions of the impurged section itself give such the detailed to the specific guidance of the rule - making that authority ..... contained inter several clauses of s. 3 (2) of the be satisfied that the attack against the validity of the said section on the ground of the excessive delegation is patently unsustainble. not only is the legislative policy broadly indicated i the preamble to the act, but the relevant provisions oft impugned section itself give such detailed and specific guidance's ..... necessary...'one of the cases cited in support of the above proposition is rex v. comptroller general of patent (1941) 2 kb 306. in that case , certain order were a passed by the comptroller general of patents regulating the rights of using an enemy = owned patent. regulations 60e of the defence (general) regulations , 1930, was framed under sub -section (1) of s. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1964 (HC)

Partap RosIn and Turpentine Factory Vs. the State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-24-1964

Reported in : AIR1966P& H16

..... . besides, certain important questions of constitutional importance arise for decision in this petition. moreover, whichever party loses here, will go as a matter of right in appeal to the letters patent bench. under these circumstances, it would be desirable if this petition is heard by a division bench in the first instance. let the papers be placed before my lord the ..... (punj) was relied upon. the decision in amrit lal's case, civil writ no. 1427 of 1965, d/- 18-12-1963 (punj) is stated to have been upheld on letters patent appeal. both these decisions, it may be pointed out, were based on the ratio of the supreme court decision in the case of manna lal jain, air 1962 s c .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1964 (HC)

Shanti Pershad and anr. Vs. Competent Authority Under the Slum Areas a ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-11-1964

Reported in : AIR1965P& H315

..... , and it is from the date of such communication of the order of the competent authority that 30 days must be reckoned under rule 8. the result then if that patently that patently the order of the administrator that the appeal of the petitioners is barred by time is contrary to rule 8 and cannot be maintained. so, that order is quashed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1964 (HC)

Jaisinghani (S.G.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-11-1964

Reported in : (1967)ILLJ234P& H

..... .9. on behalf of the intervener sri n.o. chatterji urged a preliminary consideration that the learned judges in the division beach having differed under 01. 26 of the letters patent, this bench could only give decision on the question of difference, which the learned counsel said is confined to the matter of relief. in this respect he relied upon sardar ..... bibi case [a.i.r. 1934 lah. 371 (f.b.)] (vide supra). this the full bench pointed out, was not quite proper in view of c1.26 of the letters patent, but as the points of difference were found by the learned judges to be apparent and the counsel for the parties agreed that remission of the case to the division .....

Tag this Judgment!


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