Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-23-1934
Reported in : AIR1934Cal725,152Ind.Cas.914
Panckridge, J.1. The circumstances in which this Rule has been issued upon the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, and upon the Controller of Patents are as follows:The National Carbon Company, Incorporated, carry on business in New York, where they manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights and electric torches. They are the grantees of Indian Patent No. 17148 of 1930. In the specification, which was accepted on 8th December 1930, the invention is described as relating 'to dry cells and particularly to improved means of closing and sealing such cells.' I shall hereafter refer to the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, as 'the patentees.2. The Bright Star Battery Company are incorporated in the United States of America, and they also manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights. They offer their goods for sale in India through Messrs. Brough & Co., a firm carrying on business in Bombay. In December 1931, the patentees instituted a suit on the original ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-07-1934
Reported in : 153Ind.Cas.214
1. This is a first appeal brought by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court of first instance, the District Judge of Moradabad. The plaintiff sued on the ground that he was in possession of a certificate granted by the Controller of designs, dated August 17,1929, certifying that a design No. 43516 had been registered in respect of the application of such design to trays of brass or other suitable metal under the Indian Patents and Designs Act of 1911. The photograph which is attached shows a large brass tray and the agents for the applicant specified the novelty by stating: 'The novelty of the design lies in the grooves along the sides of the tray'. The plaint set forth that the defendants had also begun to manufacture big trays of this design and that, the plaintiff had given them a notice but that they paid no heed. Paragraph 5 of the plaint stated:According to the certificate granted by the Controller of Design the plaintiff alone is entitled to manufacture big tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-07-1934
Reported in : AIR1934All798
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal brought by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court of first instance, the District Judge of Morabadad. The plaintiff sued on the ground that he was in possession of a certificate granted by the Controller of Designs dated 17th August 1929, certifying that a Design No. 43516 had been registered in respect of the application of such design to trays of brass or other suitable metal under the Patents and Designs Act of 1911. The photograph which is attached shows a large brass tray and the agents for the applicant specified the novelty by stating: 'The novelty of the design lies in the grooves along the sides of the tray.' The plaint set forth that the defendants had also begun to manufacture big trays of this design and that the plaintiff had given them a notice, but that they paid no heed. Para. 5 of the plaint stated:According to the certificate granted by the Controller of Designs the plaintiff alone is entitled to manufacture big tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-05-1934
Reported in : AIR1935Mad528; 158Ind.Cas.662
Beasley, C.J.1. Before dealing with the first point to be considered by this Full Bench, I propose to set out some of the facts of this case. At 1-34 A.M., on January 13, of this year, the Parcels Express train which left the Egmore Station at Madras at 10-10 P.M., arrived at Karunguzhi Station on the South Indian Railway. There it delivered six parcels. Five of these were handed over to the respective owners on production by them of the tickets relating to them at about 7 o'clock on the same morning. The sixth remained undelivered as no one claimed it.2. It is described by T.S. Narayanaswami Ayyar (P.W. No. 28), the Assistant Station Master at Karunguzhi to whom all the parcels were delivered, as a bed parcel packed in a date leaf mat. The receipt of this parcel and the others was acknowledged by this witness in Ex. U. In order that parcels Could be carried by that train as luggage it is necessary for the senders to have passenger tickets and the number of each passenger ticket is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-19-1934
Reported in : 163Ind.Cas.997
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Remfly dismissing an application in respect of two orders made by the Controller of Patents and Designs, by which he refused to issue two subpoenas. The learned Judge was asked to issue awrit of certiorari in order that the orders might be quashed and to issue amandatory injunction directing the Controller to issue the two subpoenas. With regard to the form of the application, the learned Judge pointed out that it was defective, because the remedies asked for would not be effective unless the Court also directed the Controller to hear and adjudicate on the evidence of the two witnesses concerned. The petitioners had applied for a patent in respect of an alleged indention relating to steel alloys. Their application was opposed before the Controller of Patents on the ground that the invention was not new, and had not been sufficiently described in the specification. The learned Judge observed in his judgment that 'pend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-06-1934
Reported in : AIR1934Bom225; (1934)36BOMLR454
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.,1. In this case the plaintiff in Suit No. 3989 of 1924 has applied for an order for execution under Rule 387 of the Rules of the Bombay High Court (Original Side). That rule and the preceding Rule 386 are in these terms. Rule 386 provides:The Sheriff shall ordinarily execute the process of the High Court in the Island of Bombay, Cross alias Gibbet and Butcher's Islands and the coasts and harbours thereof, respectively, and shall not be compellable to execute process beyond the said limits.2. Then Rule 387 provides:Upon occasions when it shall be necessary to execute process beyond the said ordinary limits, the Sheriff shall grant his special warrant to such person or persona as a Judge shall direct; and in order to prevent any improper use or abuse of the process of the Court, the party issuing the same shall give such security or indemnity for its proper execution as the Judge shall direct.The plaintiff in this suit obtained a money decree for a sum of over on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-1934
Reported in : AIR1934Bom266; (1934)36BOMLR510
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Barlee. The point involved is one of limitation and the necessary facts and dates are these. On July 3, 1916, the respondent obtained a money decree against Shankar, the father of the appellant, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona. Then on November 3, 1917, Shankar died. On March 26, 1919, the decree-holder made an application (No. 49 of 1919) under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the decree for execution to the Dhulia Court. This application was made in ignorance of the death of the judgment-debtor. Notice was issued and the bailiff then reported that Shankar was dead. On July 21, 1919, an oral application was made by the judgment-creditor's pleader for time to make enquiries as to the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The application was granted and time was given for this purpose until August 15, 1919, but on that day the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-20-1934
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR881
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Broomfield in a patent action. The material facts are that in the year 1927, the plaintiff, who is a chemist, started a business in partnership with one Girdharlal, who is the brother of the defendant, the name of the firm being Jarivalla Shah & Co. The defendant was a clerk in the employment of the firm. The firm had an experimental branch which carried on business in the name of Jasco & Co., that firm being in charge of one Dr. Patel. In August, 1928, the plaintiff left for Europe, leaving Dr. Patel in charge of the chemistry department. In February, 1929, the plaintiff returned to Bombay, and shortly thereafter Dr. Patel left the employment of the firm. In or about October, 1929, a firm called Harak-chand Shivji & Co. approached the plaintiff and asked him whether he could introduce a system of producing white almonds by some process of bleaching the shells. On November 9, 1929, the plaintiff commenced exper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-06-1934
Reported in : AIR1934All1019
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the decision of a learned Judge of this Court under which a suit instituted by the respondents against the appellants was decreed. Reoti and Khawani who is a minor, are brothers and are joint in estate. They owned one-half share in a house. Mt. Dhapo owns the other half. Reoti acting for himself and for his minor brother Khawani entered into a contract with. Ram Chandra Lal, Munshi Lal and Ranjit Lal, plaintiffs, under which he contracted to sell to them the aforesaid half share in the house for a sum of Rs. 950, and he was paid Rs. 50 as earnest money. He however did not abide by this agreement and later on sold the above mentioned property to one Bulaki Dass for a sum of Rs. 850. The plaintiffs filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract for sale made by Reoti. Bulaki Dass the purchaser was also impleaded as a defendant in that suit. The suit was decreed. It was ordered that Reoti and Khawani should obtain par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-21-1934
Reported in : AIR1935Mad486; 158Ind.Cas.764
Cornish, J.1. The learned Chief Justice acting under Clause 25, Letters Patent, has reserved as a point of law for determination under Clause 26 the question whether certain statements given in evidence at the trial of M. Ramanuja Ayyangar for murder were admissible. The statements which are in question were made by the prisoner while he was in the custody of a Police Officer at the shop of a witness, J.W. No. 10, and had relation to the sale of a mattress by that witness at that shop to the prisoner on the January 12, and to the carriage of the mattress by a coolie woman, P.W. No. 11, from the shop.2. The circumstances in which the statements came to be made may be briefly narrated. It is in evidence that the murdered woman had left her husband on August 4, and from that date had been living with the prisoner at different places in Madras, From December 23, until the evening of January 11, which was the last occasion according to the evidence on which she was seen alive, the prisoner ...
Tag this Judgment!