Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-1948
Reported in : AIR1948Mad427; (1948)1MLJ219
Govinda Menon, J.1. Against his conviction for having abetted the contravention of Rules 4 and 7 of the Madras Cotton Cloth and Apparel (Exports) Control Order, 1946, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 81 (iv) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules and the Sentence of fine of Rs. 300 imposed on him by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, Swaranath Bhatia, a partner in the firm of Viswanath Prem Prakash appeals to this Court and what I have to decide is how far the appellant can be charged with the liability for the crime.2. The facts are practically admitted. The appellant is one of the partners of the aforesaid firm and the second accused before the lower Court was said to be the other partner. As there was no tangible evidence to prove that he (second accused) had any connection with the Madras branch, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged him under Section 253(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The partnership of Viswanath Prem Prakas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-13-1948
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The two respondents, Ram Kissen Das and Lachmidass, along with two other persons, Narrottam Das and Purushottamdas, carried on a business in co-partnership in Calcutta under the name and style of Narottamdas Gujrati. In the course of business transactions the said firm incurred a liability to the appellant, Madan Gopal Bagla, for a certain sum of money. The liability so incurred was for the price of goods supplied in Calcutta. In 1930 Madan Gopal Bagla brought a suit, being No. 481 of 1930, in the Original Side of this Court against the said firm to recover the money so due to him and got a decree on 22-8-1930 for Rs. 5696-15-3 with interest at 6 per cent, and costs. This decree would hereafter be referred to as ''the decree passed by this Court.' On 4-12-1930 it was transmitted for execution to the District Judge of Benares. There the decree-holder, Madan Gopal Bagla, applied for execution. A sum of Rs. 1108-2-0 was realised by him in 1931 by the sale of some immovab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-16-1948
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. - 333 U.S. 127 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948) Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. No. 280 Argued January 13, 1948 Decided February 16, 1948 333 U.S. 127 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Certain product claims of Bond Patent No. 2,200,532, on certain mixed cultures of root-nodule bacteria capable of inoculating the seeds of leguminous plants belonging to several cross-inoculation groups, held invalid for want of invention. Pp. 333 U. S. 128 -132. 2. Discovery of the fact that certain strains of each species of these bacteria can be mixed without harmful effect on the properties of either is not patentable, since it is no more than the discovery of a phenomenon of nature. P. 333 U. S. 131 . 3. The application of this newly discovered natural principle to the problem of packaging inoculants was not invention or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-08-1948
United States v. Line Material Co. - 333 U.S. 287 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948) United States v. Line Material Co. No. 8 Argued April 29, 1947 Reargued November 12-13, 1947 Decided March 8, 1948 333 U.S. 287 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus 1. Arrangements between two patentees for cross-licensing of their interdependent product patents, and for licensing exclusively by one of them of other manufacturers to make and vend under both patents, which arrangements, together with those entered into separately with other licensees, were intended to and did control the prices at which products embodying both patents were sold in interstate commerce by the patentees and all licensees, held violative of 1 of the Sherman Act. Pp. 333 U. S. html#288">333 U. S. 288-299, 305-315. (a) United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U. S. 476 , distinguished. Pp. 333 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-08-1948
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. - 333 U.S. 364 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) United States v. United States Gypsum Co. No. 13 Argued November 14-15, 1947 Decided March 8, 1948 333 U.S. 364 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A complaint in a suit by the United States to restrain alleged violations of the Sherman Act charged that the defendants had violated 1 and 2 of the Act by a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in gypsum products. It alleged that the defendants acted in concert in entering into patent licensing agreements; that one of the defendants, dominant in the industry, granted patent licenses and the other defendants accepted licenses with the knowledge that all other concerns in the industry would accept similar licenses and that, as a result of such concert of action, competition was eliminated by fixing the price of pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-16-1948
Reported in : (1948)2MLJ47
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an application under clause 17 of the Letters Patent of 1865 by A.S. Thiruvengada Mudaliar for being appointed guardian of the joint family property belonging inter alia, to his five minor sons and for sanction of the sale of that property as being beneficial to the interests of the minor sons. The petitioner as the father is the Karta of the family and he has besides the five minor sons two adult sons, and there are also his wife and an unmarried minor daughter who have rights of maintenance. The properties admittedly are ancestral immoveable properties consisting of lands in the villages of Sembiam and Paravallur measuring in the aggregate about 52 acres. Those villages were recently brought within the Municipal limits of Madras City and the lands therein have consequently risen in value. I shall deal with the facts bearing upon the beneficial nature of the proposed transaction at a later stage.2. The first question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-05-1948
Commissioner v. Sunnen - 333 U.S. 591 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen No. 227 Argued December 17, 1947 Decided April 5, 1948 333 U.S. 591 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A taxpayer owned 89% of the stock of a manufacturing corporation and his wife owned 10%. The corporation was managed by five directors, including the taxpayer and his wife, elected annually by the stockholders. A vote of three directors was required to take binding action. In exchange for a specified royalty, the taxpayer gave the corporation nonexclusive licenses to manufacture and sell devices covered by certain patents which he owned. The licenses were cancellable by either party upon giving appropriate notice, specified no minimum royalties, and did not bind the corporation to manufacture and sell any particular number of the patented devices. The taxpayer assigned his interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-05-1948
Reported in : (1948)2MLJ291
Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. The only question in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the learned Judge, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., was right in holding that the appellants could not attack the decree passed by the learned City Civil Judge. The learned Judge on a consideration of what happened before the City Civil Judge who tried the suit held that the appellants could not be heard to dispute in appeal the rate of maintenance fixed by the learned Judge. The suit was filed by the appellants, the first appellant being the wife and the second appellant being the minor daughter of the respondent. They claimed maintenance for both and marriage expenses for the second appellant. The respondent filed a written statement denying his liability to pay any maintenance. When the suit came on for trial what happened before the learned Judge is best set out in his own words in paragraph (4) of his judgment,Though the allegations of abandonment and ill-treatment made in the plaint were denied by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1948
Reported in : AIR1949Bom42; (1948)50BOMLR450
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to eject his tenant. The defendant has pleaded the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. At the hearing; of the suit before Mr. Justice Desai attention was drawn to the relevant provisions. of Bombay Act LVII of 1947 under which all pending suits relating to recovery or fixing of rent or possession of premises to which that Act applied had to be transferred to and continued before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. It was then contended both by the plaintiff and the defendant that Sections 28, 29 and 50 of that Act were ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature and were also repugnant to existing law and void and of no effect. Mr. Justice Desai directed that the plaint should be amended to make the necessary averments and that the Province of Bombay should be made a party to the suit. Consequently the plaint was amended and para, 2-A was added, containing the relevant averments and the Province of Bombay was made a party defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-26-1948
United States v. Scophony Corp. - 333 U.S. 795 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Scophony Corp., 333 U.S. 795 (1948) United States v. Scophony Corporation of America No. 41 Argued January 12-13, 1948 Decided April 26, 1948 333 U.S. 795 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A British corporation with its principal place of business in London engaged in the Southern District of New York in various but continuing efforts to conserve and exploit its television inventions and patents. This was done through a series of complex contractual arrangements made with certain American corporations, and involved the British company's constant intervention and supervision. The company was represented in the New York district by two of its directors, one of whom held a comprehensive power of attorney to protect its interests in the United States. Held: the company was "transacting business" and was "found" in the South...
Tag this Judgment!