Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1986 Page 8 of about 424 results (0.009 seconds)

Mar 05 1986 (SC)

Ambalal Manibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-05-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1620; 1989Supp(2)SCC362

..... in the high court challenging the validity of the said notification dated march 26, 1979, so far as the enhancement of the dead rent was concerned. the appellant's letters patent appeals as also those writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment reported as smt. sonbai pentalji v. state of gujarat (1980) 2 (21) 2 guj lr ..... appellant's writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of the high court. thereupon, the appellant filed a letters patent appeal against the said order of dismissal being letters patent appeal no. 62 of 1978. while the said letters patent appeal was pending, the government of gujarat issued a notification dated march 26, 1979, whereby it made the gujarat minor minerals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1986 (SC)

G.K. Dudani and ors. Vs. S.D. Sharma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-06-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1455; (1987)1GLR70; 1986LabIC1454; 1986(1)SCALE1374; 1986Supp(1)SCC239; [1986]2SCR250

..... this contention and had held that the appointments of the promoters between 1961 and 1963 were regular. though this point was taken in the memorandum of appeal in the letters patent appeal filed by the direct recruits, the division bench which heard this appeal did not disturb this finding nor was this finding upset in chauhan's case. on the contrary ..... as it was practicable and, therefore, the promotions of mamlatdars made between 1961 and 1963 were regular. the direct recruits thereupon filed a letters patent appeal being letters patent appeal no. 113 of 1974. in the said letters patent appeal the direct recruits contended that the promoters had not been appointed in substantive vacancies, but were appointed in such vacancies only on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1986 (HC)

Fatesang Gimba Vasava and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-19-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Guj9; (1987)1GLR219

..... vehicle into the forest area for the purpose of transporting the bamboo articles purchased from the petitioners since no action was taken against the appellant on that count. 15. letters patent appeal no. 211 of 1981 is allowed and the order passed by the learned single judge dt. 24th july, 1981 is set aside, and a writ of mandamus is directed ..... was done with the express permission of the forest officer or under any rule made by the state government in that behalf. in that view that we take, the letters patent appeal must be allowed.14. in the result the writ petitions nos. 1932 of 1982, 6252 of 1983 and 6275 of 1983 are allowed and the rule is made absolute ..... who reside in forest villages are entitled to insist on the compliance with the first paragraph of the resolution of 4th mar., 1972.11. we now deal with the letters patent appeal no. 211 of 1981 arising out of special civil application no. 1412 of 1981 filed by a dealer in furniture and other articles, such as, supdas, palas, toplas, etc ..... of broach district. the petitioners of writ petition no. 6275 of 1983 are also kotwalias residing in the forests of songadh -tapti range in songadh taluka of surat district. letters patent appeal no. 211 of 1981 arises out of writ petition no. 1412 of 1981 which was initiated by a businessman who was purchasing toplas, supadas and palas prepared from bamboos .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1986 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. K.K. Baxi and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-02-1986

Reported in : (1987)1GLR417

..... respondents 1 and 2 herein and allowed the petition. it is as against this order, the union of india and the union public service commission have preferred the above letters patent appeal.2. mr. shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, firstly states that but for the government of india decision no. 3 dated 25-8-1955 which is in ..... p.r. gokulakrishnan, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal is against the order of the learned single judge passed in special civil application no. 1305 of 1984. in this special civil application the petitioners therein prayed for quashing ..... high court.4. we are in complete agreement with the reasoning and finding on this aspect of the case and accordingly we do not find any merits in this letters patent appeal. for all these reasons, this letters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1986 (HC)

S. Guhan and ors. Vs. Rukmini Devi Arundale and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-19-1986

Reported in : AIR1988Mad1

..... cease to exist.' it does not even state that the scheme decree will come into force after the necessary or required steps are taken as prescribed under the statute. a patent illegality had come into existence by such a scheme decree being passed, because of non7compliance with the requirements of tamil nadu act 27 of 1975.56. on behalf of respondents ..... raise points as done because as held in sundara lyer v. varada iyer; (1935) 69 m u 300 : air 1935 mad 855 the powers under cl. 15 of the letters patent are very wide. hence, the order passed on i5-10-1985 cannot prevent appellants in this appeal to canvass the points which they have taken.43. the other contention of ..... air 1949 mad 127, on a new plea being raised, and which turned out to be a question of law, it was held that for the first time in letters patent appeal, such a point could be taken, even though it had not been raised either in the trial court or in the lower appellate court or in second appeal. on ..... held that a sanction granted under s. 92 c.p.c. is a 'judgment' and as against it an appeal is maintainable, as contemplated under cl. 15 of the letters patent. merely because a sanction is granted, it does not mean that such a suit can be decreed. for the purposes of granting sanction, certain relevant factors are taken into account .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1986 (HC)

P.R. Seetharaman Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-23-1986

Reported in : AIR1988Mad45

..... of the writ petition, resorted to such an appeal and the said second appeal is pending disposal. when we find that the order that has come to be passed is patently an unsustainable and an incompetent one, and when we do not get any convincing answer with regard to the plea of limitation, i do not think that it will be ..... admitted position) that the order was served, on a date later than 31-5-1979. when we see this factual position, this court has to conclude, that there was a patent error committed by the government of tamil nadu in entertaining the appeal petition, which was out of time, and deciding it on merits. it has been the uniform view of ..... opposite party controverting the allegations set out in the basic proceedings, presented before the court or the statutory tribunal and a case where the very particulars, as they stand disclosed, patently and non-controversially make out that the presentation is out of time. the present case falls under latter category. in the appeal petition dt. 1-10-1979, the date of ..... , if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. even this one month period had lapsed by the end of july iw9. patently, the appeal presented by r. sundaram on 11- 10-1979, was barred by limitation. i am not able to get any convincing answer from the learned counsel appearing for r .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1986 (TRI)

Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-05-1986

Reported in : (1987)(11)LC287Tri(Mum.)bai

..... is the case of shah bahulal khimji air 1981 sc 1986. in this case the supreme court was dealing with the provisions of the civil procedure code and the scope of letters patent appeal to the high courts. in para 113 of this judgment, the supreme court set out three categories of judgments, namely final, preliminary and intermediary or interlocutory. in this judgment ..... and anr., air 1981 supreme court 1786, their lordships of the supreme court were considering as to the scope of the expression 'judgment' appearing in clause 15 of the letters patent. after reviewing the various decisions, his lordship mr. justice fazal ali for himself and on behalf of his lordship mr. justice a. varadarajan observed that a judgment can be of ..... finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and have already been held by us to be judgments within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. there may also be interlocutory orders which are not covered by order 43, rule 1 but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality in that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1986 (TRI)

Collector of Customs Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Dec-24-1986

Reported in : (1987)(11)LC769Tri(Delhi)

..... with import of components, assemblies and vehicles from japan. one can understand the logic behind payment of royalty. when suzuki transferred the technical knowhow and permitted maruti to use its patents and designs, suzuki had naturally expected to be compensated for it. when the indigenisation programme of maruti progressed, import of components from suzuki would gradually go on decreasing. that would ..... , we find substance in the argument of maruti that payment of royalty/fee under the licence agreement was relatable directly to indigenous manufacture of components and vehicles to suzuki's patents, designs and specifications. similarly, use of the trade mark "maruti-suzuki" was also for marketing of the indigenously manufactured goods in india. neither the royalty nor the trade mark "maruti ..... on the board of directors of maruti. (2) licence agreement :- under this agreement, maruti acquired the right and technical knowhow to manufacture cars and their components in india to the patents, designs and specifications of suzuki on payment of lumpsum royalty of $ 24/- lakhs plus 3% running royalty. (3) purchase and supply agreement :- this agreement related to import of skd/ckd .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1986 (FN)

Bowsher Vs. Synar

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jul-07-1986

..... authority incompatible with article iii status. glidden held that the court of claims and the court of customs and patent appeals were indeed article iii tribunals. with respect to the advisory opinion jurisdiction, justice harlan's opinion for the plurality noted: "the overwhelming majority of the court of claims' business ..... constitution. before the assignments, congress had pronounced the court of claims and the court of customs and patent appeals to be article iii courts, implying that judges on those courts were entitled to article iii benefits. older statutes, however, gave both courts authority to issue advisory opinions, an ..... case had received unfavorable rulings from judges assigned to temporary duty in the district court or court of appeals from the court of claims or the court of customs and patent appeals; they argued that those rulings should be set aside because the judges from the specialized courts did not enjoy the tenure and compensation guaranteed by article iii of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1986 (HC)

Adarsha Dugdhalaya Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.S. Devrajan, Income Tax ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-13-1986

Reported in : [1987]168ITR48(Bom)

..... he proposes to substitute, it cannot be said that the method employed heretofore by the petitioners, and accepted by the income tax authorities, over the years is an obvious or patent mistake. if at all it is a mistake, it is a mistake, it is a mistake whose discovery will require investigation and debate. even then there may, conceivably, be two ..... identify each animal and to maintain a record of the cost of its acquisition. it is reasonable that the average cost of the acquisition of the cattle should be considered. patently, cattle which do not yield milk for the time being but which may or may not yield milk in future must be valued at something less than the average cost ..... . s. balaram, ito, company circle iv, bombay v. volkart brothers & ors. : [1971]82itr50(sc) , the supreme court held that '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 be conceivably two opinions. a decision on a debatable .....

Tag this Judgment!


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