Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1980 Page 8 of about 422 results (0.011 seconds)

Jan 16 1980 (HC)

Talakchand Jayachand Doshi and ors. Vs. Bhaichand Gautamchand Doshi an ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-16-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom19; 1981MhLJ931

..... the opinion that the present darkhast is not wholly barred by limitation and it must be proceeded with for recovering all monies due from 10th dec., 1956.12. the letters patent appeal thus fails substantially. the decree-holder has failed only to the extent of about three instalments, between september and dec. 1956. in view of this fact, the appellants must ..... mentioned above, was dismissed by vaidya j. by his judgment and order dated 12th aug., 1975. it is this order that is the subject-matter of challenge in this letters patent appeal.4. mr. pinge, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants who are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor, has raised several points in this appeal. in the ..... by the respondents in this appeal. the appellants are the judgment-debtors and having failed both before the executing court and before vaidya j., they have now preferred this letters patent appeal.2. in special civil suit no. 60 of 1953 filed in the court of the civil judge, senior division at solapur, one bhaichand gautamchand doshi obtained a decree based ..... jahagirdar, j.1. this letters patent appeal seeks to challenge the order of vaidya j. dated 12th of aug., 1975 by which he dismissed first appeal no. 153 of 1971 preferred by the appellants in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1980 (HC)

Gurram Ramaohana Rao and ors. Vs. Koda Kanakacharyulu and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-14-1980

Reported in : AIR1980AP305

..... to the substantial question of law involved in this appeal he granted leave to appeal.2. the relevant facts which give rise to the questions of law in this letters patent appeal are not in dispute. from the above narration of facts it is clear that the plaintiff respondent in the present suit is the purchaser of the suit house at ..... of the house. in execution of the said final decree, sale was held on 22-4-1957. the predecessor of the 1st defendant who is the appellant in this letters patent appeal obtained a transfer of this decree in his favour on 19-8-1960. before confirmation of sale the mortgagee transferred his rights to one raghvaiah who died in the ..... madhava reddy, j. 1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother ramchandra raju, j., in second appeal no. 317/71. the plaint schedule house situated at vijayawada originally belonged to one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1980 (HC)

Dayal Chand and anr. Vs. Gajraj Singh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-26-1980

Reported in : AIR1980MP162; 1980MPLJ401

..... the ultimate outcome of this appeal and for that reason they have applied for being impleaded. we do not find any ground to allow this application filed in the letters patent appeal. however, shri j. k. agnihotry, who appeared as their counsel and supported shri padhye, counsel for the respondents, was also heard on merits.19. consequently, we allow this appeal ..... constructive res judicata. the judgment-debtors have, therefore, succeeded ultimately before the learned single judge of this court. the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser have thereafter filed this letters patent appeal.7. the first question is whether the principle of constructive res judicata is applicable to shut out the fresh objection taken by the judgment-debtors in their application dated ..... j.s. verma, j.1. this appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is against the order dated 19-3-1976 passed by a learned single judge of this court in misc. (second) appeal no. 307 of 1973, arising out of execution proceedings. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1980 (HC)

M.J. Purohit and anr. Vs. the Executive Engineer, Gondal and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-13-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Guj205; (1981)0GLR1

..... . sheth, j. in special civil application no. 1181 of 1973. our learned brother dismissed the special civil application and discharged the rule and the original petitioner has filed this letters patent appeal against the judgment and order of our learned brother.2. the facts leading to this litigation are that petitioner no.1 has been working as an electrical contractor. he ..... . in our opinion, the conclusion reached by our learned brother was correct though the reasons which appealed to him are different from the reasons which appealed to us. this letter patent appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.8. appeal dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1980 (HC)

Sm. Ashalata Dey and ors. Vs. Kamal Kumar Bose

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-06-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Cal271,(1981)1CompLJ235(Cal)

..... supreme court reversed the aforesaid decision of this court the necessity for such an amendment did arise. the plaintiffs therefore have filed the application for amendment in the pending letters patent appeal arid there is neither any gross delay nor does the delay affect or prejudice the defendant in any manner. such being the position, we find no reason why we ..... accordingly. the defendant's appeal was disposed of accordingly on june 26, 1973. against that decision both the plaintiff and the defendant have preferred two independent appeals being the letters patent appeal referred to hereinbefore.5. on nov. 20, 1974 the supreme court reversed the decision of this court in the case of sailendra nath ghosal as above and upheld the ..... order1. this is an application for amendment of the plaint filed in these two letters patent appeals which arise out of a suit for eviction. the application has been heard on contest by the tenant-defendant who is appellant in one of these appeals and respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1980 (HC)

Association of Commerce House Block Owners Ltd. Vs. Vishandas Samaldas ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-08-1980

Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR339

..... with the provisions of section 4 of the ownership flats act is not a valid and legal document at all is being raised for the first time in this letters-patent appeal because, according to the learned counsel, what was urged before the learned single judge was that the agreement was inadmissible because of the provisions of section 49 of the ..... m.n. chandurkar, j.1. this letters patent appeal filed by defendant no. 1 arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 31st october, 1964 in respect of certain property, the identity of which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1980 (HC)

Rango Laxman Pingle Vs. Kumudini Chandrakant Pethkar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-17-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom220; 1980MhLJ605

..... were required to be registered was effected only in the year 1929. hence the decree which was passed in 1922 does not require registration.11. as a result, the letters patent appeals are allowed. the judgment of the learned single judge d/- 17-2-1975, in first appeal no. 368 of 1974 is set aside and the order issued under order ..... manohar, j.1. the appellants in the two letters patent appeals are the son and grandsons of one laxman pingle. on or about 2nd march, 1922 a special civil suit no. 341 of 1922 was filed by khanderao mehendale against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1980 (HC)

TIn Can Manufacturing Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-01-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Delhi179; 1981CriLJ667; 19(1981)DLT23

..... below were erroneous and that the fixation of the rateable value at rs.14,699.00 was valid. he dismissed the suit of the appellant. from his decision this letters patent appeal has been brought. (4) it is necessary to go into the various contentions raised before the learned single judge in the second appeal. in our opinion, this appeal can ..... avadh behari rohatgi, j.(1) this is a letters patent appeal from the order of a learned single judge dated may 19, 1971. (2) the appellant's building was assessed to house tax at an annual value of rs. 5191. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1980 (HC)

Tayub Jamal and Company Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-01-1980

Reported in : 17(1980)DLT568

..... (8) were not attracted, the finding of the learned single judge was against the appellant. (4) the appellant has now filed the present appeal under clause x of the letters patent. mr. madan bhatia learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two submissions before us. his first contention is that the material document on the basis of which the order was ..... b.n. kirpal, j.(1) the appellant in this letters patent appeal had obtained a license for the import of the odolite. on 27th may, 1961 indents were placed on the foreign exporter, m/s kovo through their agents in india, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1980 (HC)

Custodian of Evacuee Property Vs. Qabool Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-30-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Delhi183; 17(1980)DLT515; 1980RLR500

..... into consideration in determining the commencement of the running of the period under article 181 of the limitation act. (5) the custodian of evacuee property has filed the present letters patent appeal. it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the basis of the judgment of the single judge is that the custodian does not have an independent title and ..... b.n. kirpal, j.(1) the property in question in this letterg patent appeal being property no. xii/6556 to 6572/4613 situated in mughal- pura, subzi mandi, delhi, was mortgaged by one mohd. ismail, respondent no. 9. at the instance of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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