Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2004 Page 7 of about 1,374 results (0.011 seconds)

Apr 08 2004 (HC)

Jindal thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Cor ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-08-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR3463; 2004(5)KarLJ161

..... categories namely, (i) where the tribunal acts in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it under the statute or regulation creating it or where it ostensibly fails to exercise a patent jurisdiction; (ii) where there is an apparent error on the face of the decision and (iii) where the tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence. it is only ..... aforementioned two errors are corrected, the tariff would increase to rs. 2.54 per unit as per the commission's own calculations. it needs to be noticed that the above patent errors have neither being disputed nor adverted to by the respondents nor any clarifications have been provided by any of the respondents in the pleadings filed before the court or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2004 (HC)

RaziuddIn Mohd. Siddiqui and anr. Vs. Zaihab Khatoon and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-26-2004

Reported in : 2004(6)ALD564; 2004(6)ALT658; 2005(1)CTC179; [2005(2)JCR31(AP)]

..... the facts of the said case, the division bench came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay, and, thus dismissed the letters patent appeal and, for that reason, it did not express any opinion on the reasoning of the learned single judge on the other point that once the remedy had been availed ..... the defendant-petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was untenable and accordingly dismissed the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act. in these circumstances, letters patent appeal was preferred. the division bench on the point of applicability of section 14 of the limitation act, upheld the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that section ..... ex parte decree along with an application under section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay in filing the said application. the delay was condoned. plaintiff preferred letters patent appeal and in the said appeal division bench noticed the plaintiffs objection that a regular appeal under section 96 of the code and the remedy of filing an application under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2004 (HC)

Feroza Khatoon and ors. Vs. Shiv Munda and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Feb-23-2004

Reported in : [2004(2)JCR549(Jhr)]

..... the extent of providing for interest at 9% per annum on the compensation awarded from the date of application before the tribunal until the date of payment.6. the letters patent appeal is thus allowed to the limited extent of modifying the award relating to interest and awarding it to the claimants at the rate of 9% per annum from the ..... interest from the date of the application for compensation. it is not clear whether this ground was argued before the learned single judge, though in the memorandum of this letters patent appeal, a ground in this regard has been taken. we think that the tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the application rather than providing for interest on ..... of 15. the learned single judge also did not find any reason to interfere in the context of the case. sitting in further appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent, we are not satisfied that we will be justified in interfering with the adoption of 15 as the multiplier. in this context, we have also notice the argument of learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2004 (HC)

Ramesh Chandra Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Apr-28-2004

Reported in : [2004(3)JCR181(Jhr)]

..... determine as to whether the second time bound promotion was granted to the petitioner on his misrepresentation or not? against the said order of single judge the petitioner filed letters patent appeal being lpa no. 60 of 2002, which was dismissed by a division bench on 14.7.2002 affirming the order of the single judge. from the order of division ..... bench in letters patent appeal it appears that with regard to recovery of the amount it was observed that the controlling officer shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.3. it is ..... (respondent no. 3) to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law pursuant to the order passed by this court in the aforesaid writ application as well as the letters patent appeal within a period of eight weeks from the elate of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2004 (HC)

Hira Lal and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-15-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)SLJ194(P& H)

..... valid settlement and that the resolution passed on the basis of the aforesaid settlement could not have been annulled by the state government. thereafter, municipal committee, amritsar filed a letters patent appeal no. 1 of 1983 before this court challenging the judgment of the learned single judge. vide judgment dated december 10, 1984 a division bench of this court dismissed the ..... committee, amritsar and its workmen was well within the rights of the municipal committee and, as such, the state government could not have annulled the resolution. on that basis letters patent appeal filed by the municipal committee was dismissed, a similar appeal filed by the state of punjab, being lpa no. 111 of 1983, was also dismissed. subsequently, special leave petition ..... bonus to its employees had attained finality upto the apex court. it had also been held by this court in the earlier writ petition as well as in the letters patent appeal that the state government had no power to annul the resolution dated july 14, 1973 passed by the municipal committee, amritsar. in this view of the matter, it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2004 (SC)

State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2081; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)46; 2004(2)BLJR912; 2004CriLJ1825; (2004)3GLR2242; JT2004(4)SC129; 2004(4)KarLJ484; 2004(2)KLT342(SC); 2004(4)SCALE115; (2004)4SCC684

..... instances and the antecedents involving or concerning those persons. if they feel that the presence or participation of any person in the meeting or congregation would be objectionable, for some patent or latent reasons as well as past track record of such happenings in other places involving such participants necessary prohibitory orders can be passed. quick decisions and swift as well ..... the need to protect and preserve law and order. the court was not acting as an appellate authority over the decision of the official concerned. unless the order passed is patently illegal and without jurisdiction or with ulterior motives and on extraneous considerations of political victimisation by those in power, normally interference should be the exception and not the rule. the ..... peace and tranquility without lapse of time acting emergently, if warranted, giving thereby paramount importance to societal needs by even overriding temporarily private rights keeping in view public interest, is patently inbuilt in section 144 of the code.11. the stand of the respondent before the high court was that the adm who passed the order was not covered by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2004 (SC)

Muller and Phipps (India) Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise, Bo ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-05-2004

Reported in : 2004(94)ECC1; 2004(167)ELT374(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC490; 2004(5)SCALE391; (2004)4SCC787

..... customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') question raised for our consideration is whether johnson's prickly heat powder and phipps processed talc are patent or proprietary medicines classifiable for the purposes of excise duty under the erstwhile tariff item 14e (as prior to 1.3.1986) and heading 30.03 (subsequent to 1.3 ..... a drug or medicament and not as cosmetics; that from 1970 till 1985 prickly heat powders have been classified and assessed under tariff item 14e of the old tariff as 'patent or proprietary medicines'; that the collector (appeals), disagreeing with the authorities, has taken the view that in view of the medicinal ingredients, namely, salicylic acid and boric acid which are ..... conditions as required by rule 17 of the drugs and cosmetics rules, 1945 have to be complied with; that the product is known and understood in commercial parlance as a patent or proprietary medicine used for the prevention and treatment of the disease, prickly heat; that the head of the pharmacology department of the grant medical college, mumbai has also opined .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2004 (SC)

Prabhakar Adsule Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3557; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)801; JT2004(5)SC187; RLW2004(3)SC430; 2004(5)SCALE790; (2004)11SCC249

..... special leave has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.7.2001 of a division bench of high court of madhya pradesh at indore, by which the letters patent appeal preferred by state of madhya pradesh was allowed and the suit filed by the respondent, prabhakar adsule was dismissed.2. the property in dispute is a plot measuring 8 ..... aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned single judge, the state of madhya pradesh and m.p. housing board preferred separate letters patent appeals before a division bench of the high court. the letters patent appeal preferred by the state of madhya pradesh was allowed with costs and the suit was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2004 (SC)

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-12-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC4271; 2004(6)ALD98(SC); 2004(3)AWC2697(SC); 113(2004)DLT1(SC); [2004(102)FLR1021]; JT2004(6)SC347; (2004)IIILLJ532SC; 2004(6)SCALE611; (2004)8SCC88; 2005(1)SLJ56(S

..... , j. 1. delhi transport corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the delhi high court in letters patent appeal no. 298/2002 filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman'). 2. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:the respondent-workman was found to have ..... )(b) of the act was to be granted to the employer to dismiss the respondent-workman. 4. the workman assailed the judgment of the learned single judge by filing letters patent appeal. by the impugned judgment by which several lpas and writ petitions were disposed of, the view of the tribunal was restored and that of learned single judge was set ..... making the admission to show why the admission is not to be acted upon. 8. be that as it may, we find that the division bench while dealing with letters patent appeal filed by the workman based its conclusions on other cases which related to unauthorized absence and where the factual background was not similar to those involved in the present .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2004 (HC)

Tushar D. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-14-2004

Reported in : (2004)3GLR680

..... disciplinary authority in some cases while not doing so in other cases. in such cases, the right of the employee depends upon the choice of the higher/ appellate authority which patently results in discrimination between an employee and employee. surely, such a situation cannot savour of legality. hence we are of the view that the contention advanced on behalf of the ..... also it is our common experience that petitions of the single judge are placed before the division bench hearing petitions involving identical issue, causing loss of right of filing letter patent appeal to some of the litigants, much to their dislike; but such course is permissible and many a times it is resorted to by this court. similarly in criminal appeals ..... single judge of this court quashed the order of termination of the service of the petitioner. against the said decision of the learned single judge, g.e.b. preferred letters patent appeal before the division bench. the division bench confirmed the order of reinstatement in service, but modified the order with regard to payment of back wages and reduced it from .....

Tag this Judgment!

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