Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1979 Page 5 of about 358 results (0.011 seconds)

Jul 19 1979 (HC)

Raghubir Singh and anr. Vs. the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and ors ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-19-1979

Reported in : 1979WLN481

..... in exercise of its powers of superintendence and control under section 221 of the act of 1955 to correct the patent illegality to fortify his submission, he has placed reliance on harchand v. rajasthan revenue board i.l.r. (1952) 2 raj. 833, kana and ors. v. board of revenue, rajasthan ..... v. board of revenue rajasthan 1962 r.l.w. 171. on the other hand, mr. d.s. shishodia, learned government advocate for the state of, rajasthan, has urged that a patent illegality had been committed by the sub-divisional officer while determining the ceiling area for the petitioners by his order dated may 5, 1976, and therefore, the board had jurisdiction ..... that there is no provision for separate units in chapter iiib of the act of 1955. in the ultimate analysis the learned member found that there is a gross and patent illegality in the order of the learned sub-divisional officer and. consequently, he set aside the order of the sub divisional officer dated may 5, 1976 as well as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Eva Raha

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jul-02-1979

..... . '23. therefore, in the instant case, the orders which had been rendered by the tribunal were good and valid when they were so rendered. but the orders so rendered are patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospect tive operation of the amendment act. therefore, when the application for rectification was made within the period of limitation prescribed under section ..... glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. prima facie it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment act. but such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1979 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C. Damani and Co. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-03-1979

Reported in : 1989(25)LC216(Bombay)

..... metric tonnes) of silver. of these, sixteen contracts are covered by the earlier part of this order in which we have prima facie considered the action in preventing shipment as patently and blatantly illegal. the quantity covered by the 16 deals of contracts is 5100 kgs. (5.1 metric tonnes) of silver. it was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf ..... prevention of the shipment carried out in whatever manner it may have been carried out by whatever modus operandi, amounts to an illegal exercise of power-an illegality which is patent as well as blatant-and which, in the circumstances of the case, must be checked and controlled even by interim orders.11. thus it is clear that in respect of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1979 (HC)

indo-national Limited and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-24-1979

Reported in : 1979(4)ELT334(AP)

..... refundable on any account whatsoever. the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to exclude the said trade discount for purposes of determining assessable value. the order of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, patently illegal, without the authority of the law and without jurisdiction. in w.p. no. 217 of 1978 the petitioner prays for issue of a writ, direction or order, particularly in ..... there from the post-manufacturing costs as well as the post-manufacturing profits and the refusal of the 2nd respondent to accept the price list submitted by the petitioner is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. the rejection of the petitioner's request to delete the cost of the display boxes and cartons from the price charged to the wholesale dealers for .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1979 (HC)

Print Pak Machinery Ltd. Vs. Jay Kay Papers Conveters

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-25-1979

Reported in : AIR1979Delhi217; 1979RLR418

..... the code. it reads : 'not with standinganything in this code, any high court not being the court of a judicial commissioner may make such rules not inconsistent with the letters patent or order or other law establishing it to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing herein contained shall ..... this act, stand repealed.'theoriginal side rules were not an 'amendment made' or a provision inserted in the code. they always existed as a separate body of rules. it is patent from section 2(18) that they are beyond the purview of the code. that sub-section defines 'rules' to mean those 'contained in the first schedule or made under section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1979 (HC)

Shirazbhai G. Munshi Vs. Ramjuji Gabharuji

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-17-1979

Reported in : (1979)2GLR254

..... or without conditions.... it is the first proviso which really causes some anxiety, whether it has got any bearing on the main enactment contained in sub-rule (5). it is patent on the face of the proviso that it is couched in double negative. the said proviso prescribes that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the court is satisfied ..... where there is a substantial or a good defence, the court must grant, as a matter of course, leave to defend the suit. in a case where the defence is patently frivolous or vexatious and the court is satisfied about it, it would refuse to grant leave. the role of the court becomes difficult only in those cases where there is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1979 (HC)

Sawan Ram Vs. Gobinda Ram and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-15-1979

Reported in : AIR1980P& H106

..... passing of decrees therein despite the enactment of this rent act. though ingenuous, the argument on an indepth analysis turns out to be fallacious. it is well met on two patently strong grounds. when first enacted, section 13(1) of the punjab rent restriction act had obviously to make a provision against ejectment orders which might have been passed prior to ..... in no uncertain terms that a tenant is not to be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of this. very section. that this provision is exclusory in nature is patent and that it bars all other laws and confines the remedy to what is spelt out in the statute itself is; therefore, manifest. coupled with this is the fact that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1979 (HC)

Lilavatiben Harjivandas Kotecha Vs. J.V. Shah, Income-tax Officer, War ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-29-1979

Reported in : [1980]122ITR863(Guj)

..... '. in t. s. balaram v. volkart brothers : [1971]82itr50(sc) , the supreme court held that a mistake apparent on the record or from the record must be an obvious an patent mistake and not some-thing which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there might conceivably be two opinions. a decision on a ..... of the relevant provisions of the act in a proceeding under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961, a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions, as seen earlier, the high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sheela Devi Goel

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-04-1979

Reported in : (1980)16CTR(All)127; [1981]132ITR517(All)

..... glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. prima facie, it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment act. but such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction, about the retrospective operation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1979 (HC)

Chandra Metal Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-20-1979

Reported in : [1979]119ITR279(All)

..... .4. mr. gulati, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that it is well settled that for purposes of section 154 of the act it is only an obvious and patent mistake apparent on the face of the record which could be rectified. in support of this contention, he placed reliance on raja hari chand raj singh v. cit : [1978]114itr727 .....

Tag this Judgment!

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