Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 137 multiple priorities Sorted by: old Court: mumbai Page 5 of about 825 results (0.089 seconds)

Aug 07 1936 (PC)

Govindbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Dahyabhai Nathabhai Patel

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1936Bom201; (1937)39BOMLR332

Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the unsuccessful plaintiff in First Appeal No. 31 of 1932. The main question is whether the property is of the appealable value. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of immoveable properties in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand Taluka, under the will of one Desaibhai. In the first instance he filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Umreth, claiming a declaration that he is the owner of various properties specified in the plaint, an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, possession of specified properties from the defendants, one-third share in certain properties sold by the defendants and Rs. 2,400 for mesne profits for three years of the properties in the possession of the defendants. The suit was valued as follows : Rs. 130 for the declaration and injunction, Rs. 333 for plaintiff's share in the price of the properties sold, Rs. ...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1936 (PC)

Govindbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Dahyabhai Nathabhai Patel and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1937Bom326

Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the unsuccessful plaintiff in First Appeal No. 31 of 1932. The Main question is whether the property is of the appealable value. The ptantiff Claimed to the owner of immoveable properties in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand Taluka, under the will of one Desaibhai. In the first instance he filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Umreth, claiming a declaration that he is the owner of various properties specified in the plaint, an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, possession of specified properties from the defendants, one-third share in certain properties sold by the defendants and Rs. 2,400 for mesne profits for three years of the properties in the possession of the defendants. The suit was valued as follows: Rs. 130 for the declaration and injunction, Rs. 333 for plaintiff's share in. the price of the properties sold, Rs. 2,40...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1936 (PC)

Trimbak Ravji Pradhan Vs. Vishnu Waman Kanitkar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1937Bom114; (1936)38BOMLR1314

Broomfield, J.1. We are concerned in this case with a dispute between members of the Municipal Board of Bhivandi-Nizampur in the Thana District, as to whether plaintiff No. 5, who was elected President of the Municipality at a meeting held on November 6, 1934, was or was not validly elected. This depends on the construction of Section 23, Sub-section (7A)-, of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 1901, as amended by Act XXVI of 1930. This clause provides as follows :-On the expiry of the term of office of a municipality the president and vice-president shall continue to carry on the current administrative duties of their offices until such time as a new president and vice-president shall have been appointed or elected and shall have taken over charge of their duties. Provided that in the case of a new municipality constituted under this Act, a meeting for the election of a new president shall be called by the president of the retiring municipality. The president of the retiring mu...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1937 (PC)

The Calico Printers Association, Limited Vs. Savani and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR45

Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a certain design for printing saries. The certificate of registration of the design with a specimen print on a piece of voil is exhibit A. The design consists of a border and, what has been at this trial called, the body or the background of the sari. The design was registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) and therefore the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to the use of the design for printing textile goods and selling the same in British India.2.The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants imported into Bombay ten cases of Japanese prints for sale in Bombay, the border of which is identical with or a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered design and that the defendants applied the design to the goods contained in the ten cases without the licence or consent of the plaintiffs and were publishing or exposing or causing to be published or exposed for sale and selling the goods.3...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1938 (PC)

Raichand Chunilal Vs. Rahi Nana Gade

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1939Bom46; (1938)40BOMLR1211

Rangnekar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Barlee by which the learned Judge held that the appeal was out of time when it was filed in the District Court against the decree made by the Joint Subordinate Judge of Nasik. The material dates are as follows : On November 11, 1932, the appellant obtained a decree on a mortgage-bond in his favour, but part of his claim was rejected by the Subordinate Judge. He appealed from that part of the decision on December 23, 1932. It is clear, therefore, on the face of it that the appeal was barred. The period of thirty days allowed under Article 152 of the Indian Limitation Act for filing an appeal expired on December 11, 1932. That day, however, was a Sunday and on the next day, that is on December 12, the appellant applied for copies. The copies were ready on December 22, and he filed his appeal on. December 23. The District Judge held that the time had expired and dismissed the appeal. This decision was conf...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1939 (PC)

Muljee Sicka and Co. Vs. the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1939Bom471; (1939)41BOMLR984

Lokur, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari in respect of the order passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Municipal Appeal No. M|96 of 1937. The petitioner firm owns several buildings on the Vithalbhai Patel Road, and they are liable to the Bombay Municipal Corporation to pay a certain percentage of their rateable values as property taxes under Sections 139 and 140 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. For this purpose, the Municipal Commissioner has to fix the rateable value of each building assessable to property tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. According to that section, the rateable value of a building or land is the amount of the annual rent for which such building or land might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, minus a sum equal to ten per centum: of the said annual rent, to be deducted in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever. Subsection (2) of Secti...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1939 (PC)

Vaman Ravji Kulkarni Vs. Nagesh Vishnu Joshi

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1940Bom216; (1940)42BOMLR428

N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against an order mad by Mr. Justice Norman sitting singly in an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Belgaum. The appellant before us and another had filed a suit in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Gokak for accounts and redemption of a mortgage under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. It related to two lands, survey No. 32 and survey No. 29: It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Ravji and his brother Bapuji, since deceased, had mortgaged the whole of survey No. 32 and survey No. 29, pot No. 3, to one Datto Ramchandra Kalkundri. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were heirs of the mortgagee. They had transferred their mortgage rights in 1925 to defendant No. 4. In darkhast No. 54 of 1922 brought in execution of a decree obtained by one Vinayak Joshi against Ravji survey Nos. 29/3 and 32/3 were sold as belonging to Ravji, and were purchased by defendant No. 5. Defendants Nos. 6 a...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1940 (PC)

Dwarkadas Dhanji Sha Vs. Chhotalal Ravicarandas and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1941Bom188; (1941)43BOMLR280

B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendants for further discovery.2. The plaintiffs claim to be the registered proprietors of a certain design for being printed on textile goods registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), and have filed this suit against the defendants for restraining them from infringing the design under the circumstances mentioned in the plaint, and for accounts, damages, costs and other reliefs In their written statement the defendants allege that prior to the registration of the design it was published in British India by the plaintiffs themselves as well as by other merchants. They also contend that the design was not new or original at the date of the registration, and that the registration is invalid and does not confer any specific right upon the plaintiffs to exclusively use the same. In order to substantiate these defences, the defendants pray for an order for discovery and inspection of the documents mentioned...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1942 (PC)

Vishvanath Haibatrao Deshpande Vs. Ranganath Dhondo Deshpande

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1942Bom268; (1942)44BOMLR534

Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Wassoodew.2. The appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the Courts below, is the inamdar of the village of Nevare in the Sholapur district. On November 4, 1918,. his father, who was then inamdar, executed a document, exhibit 39, by which he purported to grant to the plaintiffs a perpetual tenancy of certain land in the village on condition that they were to pay the assessment and local fund. It is not disputed that the terms of this document are such that they would! create a permanent tenancy, but unfortunately it was not registered and therefore under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, it cannot affect the property or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. The plaintiffs, however, entered upon the land by reason of this document and held possession under it until 1936 when the appellant forcibly dispossessed them. They then sued to recover possession and...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1942 (PC)

Ganesh Ramchandra Thakur Vs. Gopal Lakshman Thakur

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1943Bom12; (1942)44BOMLR819

Macklin, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits brought by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit brought by the family of Laxman, who was Ramchandra's brother. Each suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the two eldest members; and for a proper understanding of them it is necessary to set out the facts at some length.2. Ramchandra and Laxman went to Bombay from the Ratnagiri district more than fifty years ago and worked at the Mint; and though Laxman appears to have been the more able of the two and to have earned more money and had a better head for business, they both managed to save a certain amount of money, and they kept three joint accounts with three different banks in Bombay. Laxman, as the better business man of the two, was given a power-of-attorney by Ramchandra; and it seems that the practice of the brothers was that when any transactions affec...

Tag this Judgment!


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