Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1986 Page 3 of about 424 results (0.010 seconds)

Jan 17 1986 (HC)

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-17-1986

Reported in : [1986(52)FLR443]; ILR1987KAR353; (1986)IILLJ95Kant

..... said order, the petitioner has presented his petition. 3. sri h. b. datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of the industrial tribunal suffered from patent error of law, in that, not only for the reason that the tribunal had failed to notice that in all the statements made before the inquiring authority, the first respondent ..... face of these glaring facts and admissions, the view taken by the tribunal that no misconduct was committed by the first respondent within the meaning of the standing order is patently untenable and perverse. 16. whatever that may be, the quantum of penalty imposed appears to be excessive, as pleaded by the first respondent. it is not in dispute that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1986 (HC)

Ram Sarup Vs. Devi Dayal Bhatia and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-19-1986

Reported in : 1986(3)Crimes328; 30(1986)DLT414

..... against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2)where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused ; (3)where the discretion exercised by ..... or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences which are alleged against them nor can it be said that the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable. it also cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the magistrate in issuing process was capricious or arbitrary having been based either on no evidence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1986 (HC)

N. Balakrishnan Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Represented by the Sec ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-10-1986

Reported in : (1987)IILLJ43Mad

..... . what are those exceptional cases or circumstances cannot be defined precisely and it will have to depend on the circumstances in each case. the claim made by the worker is patently frivolous or is highly belated or that the impact of the claim on the general relation between the employer and the employee in the region is likely to be adverse ..... the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) or not. if the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the appropriate government may refuse to make a reference. likewise, if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1986 (HC)

Arun Prasad Vs. Chairman, Selection Committee

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-04-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR1781

..... selection committee to allot candidates by using its discretion. the discretion appears to be wide, but like every other discretion of a responsible authority or body it shall not be patently arbitrary or fanciful.there then follows rule 11(2)(c) which states that selection shall be made first to the government medical colleges and then for government seats in private .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1986 (HC)

Joginder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-17-1986

Reported in : AIR1986P& H339

..... instant case had positively to prove that the marking done by the board was plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. it is only if the assessment is patently arbitrary or the risk of arbitrariness is so high that a reasonable person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable, that the assessment of marks at the viva voce test may be ..... for viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2 per cent of the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection, the board has acted improperly and committed patent illegality in keeping viva voce marks at 28.5 per cent, that the higher per centage of marks has been kept by the board with a view to absorb the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1986 (SC)

Harbhajan Singh Dhalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-05-1986

Reported in : AIR1987SC9; (1987)1CompLJ76(SC); 1986(2)SCALE728; (1986)4SCC678; [1987]1SCR114; 1987(1)LC43(SC)

..... different namely (a) the government found no prima facie ground and (b) the claim was outside the provisions of section 86 of the cpc. the second ground now stated is patently erroneous and contradictory to the ground mentioned in the letter dated 26th november, 1983. one should have thought that the political relationship between the two countries would be better served ..... are intended to save the foreign states from harassment which would be caused by the institution of a suit but except in cases where the claim appears to be frivulous patently, the central government should normally accord consent or give sanction against foreign states unless there are cogent political and other reasons. normally, however, it is not the function of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1986 (HC)

Asim Gadighar Vs. Abdul Aziz S/O Lal Mohd Khureshi

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-27-1986

Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR341

..... to entertain such a suit. the fact that the plaintiff's trade name has not been registered is not material for such an action.'(vide head note (a).in letters patent appeal against the aforesaid decision, the division bench held :'it is not necessary for us to consider whether the definition of the word 'good' in the trade marks act takes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1986 (HC)

Rameshchandra Jamnadas and Co. Vs. Terene Traders and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-01-1986

Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR406; (1986)88BOMLR427

..... balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the plaintiff.14. viewed in the light of the above principles. i am afraid, the approach of the learned trial judge is patently faulty. something could have been said in support of this line of reasoning if it was a dwelling house which normally is in possession of the occupant for 24 hours .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1986 (HC)

Gurusangappa Vs. Sangameswar Primary Teachers' Co-operative Society Lt ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-24-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR1095

..... of limitation, and as the petitioner has not made out any good case to the effect that the dismissal of his appeal on the ground of limitation suffered from any patent error of law, in the normal course, we should have dismissed this petition.5. however, in view of the finding recorded by the tribunal in the same order that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1986 (HC)

Smt. Sulochana Sahu Vs. Baman Ch. Sahu

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Apr-03-1986

Reported in : 1986(I)OLR558

..... , in a legal proceeding of this nature, it was not possible on his part to properly defend himself against the petitioner's claim. in view of these facts which are patent on the records of the case, i do not propose to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned court below, i therefore with him that good .....

Tag this Judgment!


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