Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2005 Page 7 of about 1,498 results (0.018 seconds)

Jan 19 2005 (HC)

Baru Ram and ors. Vs. Khub Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-19-2005

Reported in : (2005)139PLR779

..... suit has been filed after lapse of 13 years of sanction of mutation, therefore, it is beyond the period of limitation. such finding recorded by the first appellate court is patently illegally and run contrary in view of the division bench judgment of this court reported as ibrahim alias dharam vir v. smt. sharifan alias shanti, 1979 p.l.j. 469 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2005 (HC)

Kashmiri Lal Goyal Vs. Sq. Ld. Gurdial Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-2005

Reported in : (2005)139PLR797

..... point of time before the defendant was in the witness-box.6. consequently, 1 find that the order passed by the learned trial court dated 8.4.2004 suffers from patent illegality or material irregularity causing material injustice to the petitioner and, thus, the revision petition is allowed and order dated 8.4.2004 is set aside. the defendant is permitted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2005 (HC)

Karam Singh Vs. Baldev Mitter and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-10-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR8

..... trial court is clearly distinguishable. that was a case where khana shumari register was taken in evidence in second appeal by the learned single judge of this court. the letters patent bench found that such document has not been sought to be produced in evidence along with an application under order 41 rule 27 of the code of civil procedure for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2005 (HC)

Smt. Jyotsna Prabha Kohli Vs. Reg: Estate of (Dr.) Mrs. Sharda Jagdish ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-01-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR16

..... itself cannot be a suspicious circumstance to discard the will executed by the deceased in favour of her daughter.15. lastly, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that letter patent appeal no. 548 of 1997 is pending before a division bench of this court arising out of probate case no. 4 of 1994 in which the said respondent has sought .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2005 (HC)

Darshan Singh Sethi Vs. Chander Prabha

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR126

..... the findings recorded by the first appellate court finding that the premises in dispute are required for bona fide use and occupation by the respondent. i do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned appellate court warranting interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction.

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2005 (HC)

Tikan Rai (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. Mango Bai and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-19-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR204

..... filed in the year 1978.8. thus, i do not find that finding recorded by the first appellate court that the suit is barred by limitation is suffering from any patent illegality raising any substantial question of law in second appeal. dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2005 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Anil Tayal (Huf)

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-08-2005

Reported in : (2005)195CTR(P& H)420; [2006]285ITR243(P& H)

..... .5. shri rajesh bindal, learned counsel for the revenue, argued that the view taken by the tribunal on the validity of reference made by the wto to the dvo is patently erroneous and the commissioner did not commit any illegality by relying on report dt. 14th march, 1985, because in terms of section 16a(1)(b) r/w section 16a(4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2005 (HC)

The Chandigarh Primary Cooperative Agricultural Devp. Bank Ltd. Vs. th ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-19-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR371

..... , whether superior or inferior. it can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx5. the high court, in our view, fell into patent error. the short question before the high court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2005 (HC)

Market Committee and anr. Vs. the State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-28-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR446

..... not find that the reasoning given by the learned additional secretary to government of punjab, department of agriculture, chandigarh, while accepting the revision petition of the licensee, suffers from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the constitution of india.dismissed in limine.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (HC)

Vakkom Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : 2005CriLJ3166; 2005(2)KLT895

..... application of mind. exts.p-4 and p-6 summons issued were without jurisdiction and beyond the powers of the magistrate. it is a patent error which does not require lengthy and complicated arguments or long-drawn process of reasoning and hence it is amenable to certiorari jurisdiction as held ..... the summons issued under the hand and seal of the court shows that the petitioner was called upon to produce documents alone. that is a patent error or illegality. as i have already stated, the prayer in the application filed by the second respondent was to issue summons to the ..... subsequent summons to that person to appear and give oral evidence solely because he did not produce the document. the error pointed out is a patent error and no elaborate discussion of evidence is necessary to consider that point. hence, i hold that the illegality committed by the learned magistrate, ..... approached this court under article 227 of the constitution. it is argued that even if there is a procedural irregularity, in view of the patent error committed by the magistrate the order is to be quashed.15. the specific case put forward by the petitioner is that the summons originally ..... that the high court cannot act like an appellate court and reappreciate or re-evaluate the evidence while exercising certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction and only a patent error, which does not require establishment by lengthy and complicated arguments or by long-drawn process of reasoning is amenable to certiorari jurisdiction. in smt. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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