Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR1194
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in The Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon : (1912)14BOMLR833 . Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1913)ILR37Bom506
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Company, Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon 1912 40 Cal 21. Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, however, to es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi146; 14(1978)DLT132
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. These two appeals against the order of a learned single Judge holding that the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the applications made by the respondents under S. 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), have been referred to the Full Bench for a fuller consideration of this important question of jurisdiction than it received in the order of the learned single Judge under appeal or in the judicial decisions relied upon and followed by the learned single Judge.2. The respondents in these two appeals each filed a petition under S. 51-A of the Act on the following averments supplemented by oral arguments:-A. Both the respondents and the appellant are carrying on the same trade at Delhi. B. The appellant has got two designs 131357 and 131364 registered in the Register of Designs maintained under Section 46 of the Act. C. These designs had, however, been published in India in respect of laces prior to the date of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1981Delhi257
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts germane to the disposal of this application underorder 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with s. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction concisely are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their ser- vants, or agents etc. from infringing in any manner, patent No. 143964 dated 21st July, 1976 entitled 'Laminating Apparatus' of which he claims to be proprietor and patentee, by manufacture, sale or offering for sale or using any apparatus for producing a laminate according to the said patent and for rendition of accounts. It is averred that the invention known as 'Laminating Apparatus' relates to an apparatus for producing a laminate by wet process as distinguished from dry process; plaintiff being already grantee of patent No. 142811 dated 14th November, 1974 and patent No. 143168 of 1st of October, 1975 which are also in respect of an invention for laminating apparatus but by dry process. He asser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR643
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the proceedings taken for acquisition of the lands of the petitioner. The lauds under acquisition are survey Nos. 34, H. No. 1, S, No. 35, H. No. 5, S. No. 35, II. No. 8 and portions of survey Nos. 53 and 52 in all admeasuring 8 acres and 21 gunthas situated at Panch Pakhadi in Taluka and District Thana. The circumstances which led to the filing of the petition are briefly stated as follows:-A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on July 9, 1960 and published in the Government Gazette on July 21, 1960 with a view to acquiring land for a company, M/s. Voltas Limited. That notification was not on the record but we have allowed the petitioner to present a copy thereof in the course of the arguments before us. Objections were invited, under Section 5A, on July 25, 1960 and filed by the petitioner, on August 30, 1960. The petitioner was then heard and was himself present. This was on October 17, 1960. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1786; 1981(3)SCALE1169; (1981)4SCC8; [1982]1SCR187
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an Order dated January 15, 1981 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by which the appeal filed by the appellant against the Order of the Trial Judge was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable as the Order impugned was not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court.2. After hearing counsel for the parties at great length we passed the following Order on April 22, 1981:We have heard counsel for the parties at great length. In our opinion, the appeal before the High Court was maintainable and the High Court should have entertained and decided it on merits. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated January 15, 1981 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and remand the case to the same and decide it on merits. The High Court will dispose of the appeal as quickly as possible. The interim order passed by this Court on February 16...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All692
Mootham, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is whether an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The meaning which should be given to the word 'judgment' in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court and in the corresponding Clauses of the Letters Patent of the other High Courts has engaged the minds of Judges for close on a hundred years, and has given rise to a divergence of opinion which can now only be resolved by the Supreme Court. The question has been considered in a very large number of cases many of which have been referred to in the judgment of my brother Srivastava. Basically there are three views as to what constitutes a 'judgment'. A decision according to one view will amount to a judgment if it determines some right or liability affecting the merits of the dispute between the parties; according to the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 6th February, 2009 rendered in W.P. No. 477(w) of 2009. By the aforesaid judgment, the Learned Single Judge has passed the following operative directions:On this petition being received, an interim order was made staying all further proceedings before the patent office. Since the petitioner says that its appeal from the order dated November 7, 2008 is pending and the petitioner has not had an opportunity of presenting its case before the appellate tribunal, the hearing of the private respondent's objection to the patent will remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from date or the first opportunity that the petitioner is afforded to make a prayer for an interim order in the appeal, whichever is earlier. If the petitioner cannot persuade the appellate tribunal to allot it a date for hearing its interim prayer within the time stipulated, it will be open to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(3)192; 2007(35)PTC377(Del)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to deal with I.A. No. 9649/2006 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and I.A. No. 9648/2006, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the defendants.2. By the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected since it does not disclose a cause of action; that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorised person, and; that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.3. I.A. No. 9648/2006 has been filed to say that defendant No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit and that he has been imp leaded as defendant No. 1 merely to avoid the proceedings being noticed by the defendants in the cause list and with a view to obtain an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction behind the back of the defendant No. 2 and 3.4. Taking up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC first, I proceed to deal with the objections that the plaint and the documents filed with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : LC2008(1)402; 2008(37)PTC128(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The appellants/original plaintiffs have filed this Appeal against the order and judgment dated 21.8.2007 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Injunction Application in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2007 in its original jurisdiction, rejecting the Interim Application for injunction and consequently vacating the temporary injunction granted by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Suit prior to its transfer to this Court.2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present Appeal are that the appellant after intensive research, development and incurring huge expenses, invented the invention viz. 'Polyvinyl Chloride threaded pipe joint system with coupler and wire locking device comprising two pipe joining components, two sealing rings, including a wire lock, the said wire lock is component being inserted into the groove which locks the coupler with the one end of the pipe joint, the said coupler joining both the ends using the threads, the said threads ...
Tag this Judgment!