Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1979 Page 11 of about 358 results (0.010 seconds)

Jan 05 1979 (HC)

K. Somasundaram Pillai and ors. Vs. R. Dorairaj and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-05-1979

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ443

..... .m.s.a. no. 122 of 1969. the second appeals were also allowed, the decrees passed by the trial court restored. against the decision of venkataraman, j., the above letters patent appeals have been filed.7. according to the learned counsel f0r the appellants the decision of venkataraman, j., is not in accordance with law and it cannot therefore be sustained ..... g. ramanujam, j.1. all these eight appeals which have been filed on the basis of leave granted under clause 15 of the letters patent, arise out of a common judgment rendered by venkataraman, j., in 8 appeals of which 5 are second appeals and 3 are civil miscellaneous second appeals.2. the second appeals ..... view that the landholder has no right either the claim recovery of possession or mesne profits subsequent to 15th april, 1965, the date of notification. hence we allow the letters patent appeals and set aside the judgment of venkataraman, j. there will, however, be no order as to costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1979 (HC)

Arimuthu and ors. Vs. Latchoumanpoulle

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-06-1979

Reported in : (1979)2MLJ101

..... , 1960 could not divest the vested interest secured by the plaintiff under the gift deed as above. maharajan, j., agreed with the court of first instance, and hence this letters patent appeal.2. learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, would say that arunachala did have the power to cancel the gift in toto so as to divest the interest of the ..... the suit property by virtue of the double gift made pursuant to article 1048.6. for the reasons stated above, we agree with the conclusion of maharajan, j. the letters patent appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. there will be no order as to costs. ..... ramaprasada rao, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of maharajan, j., in special appeal no. 279 of 1969 (civil) agreeing with the court of first instance, karikal, and dismissing the appeal before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1979 (HC)

Adilatchumy Ammal and anr. Vs. Ramasamy Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-1979

Reported in : (1979)2MLJ348

..... 's title to the suit property directed the defendants to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff. he however granted leave to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent.3. the short question that arises for consideration in this case is, whether by virtue of the dispositary clause in the will of royalu reddiar a vested interest was created ..... decree that he is the owner of the suit property and for a consequential direction that the defendants do deliver possession of the suit property to him.7. the letters patent appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. no costs. the defendants are granted three months time to deliver possession of the property. ..... ramaprasada rao, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal is against the judgment of maharajan, j. in s.a. no. 548 of 1973 in which he granted leave to appeal against his own judgment. the relevant facts in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1979 (HC)

H.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pt. Jai Ram and Etc. Etc.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-18-1979

Reported in : AIR1980HP16

..... was contemplated, no second appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent was permissible. the supreme court rejected this contention holding that when a statute directs that an appeal shall lie to a court already established, then that appeal must be regulated ..... an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent of bombay high court was permissible against the judgment of the learned single judge. the contention was that since under section 76 of the trade marks act only one appeal ..... judge of the bombay high court. however, from that judgment of the learned single judge, an appeal was preferred by james chadwick & bros. ltd. under clause 15 of the letters patent of bombay high court. that appeal was allowed and the order of the registrar was restored.36. on these facts the question which arose before the supreme court was whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1979 (HC)

J.N. Electricals (India) Vs. President Electricals

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-20-1979

Reported in : ILR1980Delhi215

..... engineering co. v. paul engineering co. : : air1968cal109 , while dealing with an application for cancellation and/revocation of a design, observed as follows 'readmgss. 51-a and 2(5) of the patents and designs act, it appears that a subsequent design should be self same or identical design registered earlier. the design, the registration of which is sought to be cancelled under ..... all points and should differ on none. they have to be substantially the same.(25) cave, j. in gordon and munro v. patrick and hili : (1895) vol. 12 reports of patent, design and trade mark cases 22, at page 24(1) gave the following direction to the jury while deciding a case relating to infringement of design : 'gentlemanof the jury: the ..... electric toasters which are being manufactured by the plaintiffs (exhibits pi and p2) and stated that they have got the design of exhibit p/l registered with the controller of patents and designs, calcutta under registration certificate no. : 140873. exhibit p/3 is the copy of the said certificate and exhibit p/4 is the representation of the plaintiffs in respect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1979 (FN)

Wilson Vs. Omaha Indian Tribe

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-20-1979

..... 18 ] petitioners claim that oklahoma v. texas, 258 u. s. 574 (1922), mandates the applicability of state, rather than federal, law in this case. but there the united states issued patents granting former reservation lands. the court merely held that, absent contrary evidence, when the united states conveyed and completely parted with its territory, even though indian land, it intended the ..... grantees for whom the federal government has taken no such responsibility." id. at 414 u. s. 684 (rehnquist, j., concurring). this is not a case where the united states has patented or otherwise granted lands to private owners in a manner that terminates its interest and subjects the grantees' incidents of ownership to determination by the applicable state law. the issue .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 1979 (FN)

Chapman Vs. Houston Welfare Rights Organization

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-14-1979

..... literally, as this would have created concurrent circuit and district court jurisdiction over any action whatsoever -- "for the recovery of lands, or on promissory notes, . . . or for the infringement of patent or copyrights," 1 draft 361 -- by anyone who coincidentally had been denied his civil rights. the revisers therefore concluded that congress meant to provide jurisdiction only over suits to redress ..... u. s. 615 . in holt v. indiana mfg. co., 176 u. s. 68 , 176 u. s. 72 (1900), the court held that a claim alleging that a tax on federal patent rights violated the contracts, due process, and equal protection clauses was not encompassed by rev.stat. 1979 and 629(16), or 563(12), because those provisions dealt only with "civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1979 (FN)

Vance Vs. Bradley

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-1979

..... .s.c. 1002, "violates the equal protection guarantees embodied in the fifth amendment." app. to juris.statement 9a. appellees' contention that the statute discriminates against persons aged 60 and over patently is a ground for affirming that judgment. whether appellees previously abandoned the issue is irrelevant, since the purported abandonment came after the district court had granted summary judgment. because the ..... . only a small percentage of all united states civilians working in foreign countries for this government are within the scope of 632, and, according to the district court, it is "patently arbitrary and irrational" to impose the disadvantage of early retirement upon only those relatively few. 436 f.supp. at 138. our first difficulty with this conclusion is that it ignores .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1979 (FN)

Washington Vs. Yakima Indian Nation

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-16-1979

..... mandatory states. [ footnote 41 ] pointing out that 18 u.s.c. 1151 defines indian country for purposes of federal jurisdiction as including an entire reservation notwithstanding "the issuance of any patent," they reason that, when congress, in 2, transferred to the mandatory states "criminal jurisdiction" over "offenses committed by or against indians in the indian country," it meant that all parts ..... taxed any lands owned or held by any indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the united states or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any indian or indians under any act of congress containing a provision exempting the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1979 (HC)

Kekoo J. Maneckji Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-12-1979

Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR109

..... which the magistrate could have jurisdiction to direct issue of letters rogatory to the district court in the united states. in short the contention was that the order, which is patently illegal, was liable to be quashed by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution. mr. sethana wanted us to go further into the details ..... to make an order preventing the c.b.i. from using the documents in their possession as evidence. that is why though the impugned order appears to us to be patently erroneous and in excess of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with that order. the powers under article 227 are intended to be exercised in case of failure of .....

Tag this Judgment!

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