Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-04-1958
Reported in : AIR1960Kant173; AIR1960Mys173
Malimath, J.(1) This appeal arises out of a suit praying for damages for Rs. 30,000/- and also for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from manufacturing or marketing flower design chair seats. These reliefs are apparently claimed on the ground that the plaintiff has the patent rights under the Patents and Designs Act. But it is a curious suit in that the registered patentees are admittedly defendants 1 and 2 and, on their assignment, the name of defendant 3 has been registered as an assignee.Admittedly the name of the plaintiff is nowhere to be found it the Register of Patents. Ordinarily a suit for infringement of this nature is brought by a patentee against strangers on the allegation that there is an infringement by them of the patent rights. In this case, it is just the reverse of it. We had, therefore, to ask the learned advocate for the appellant to explain how he claims the rights of a patent so as to enable him to file such an action for infringement.His contention is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-27-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant194; AIR1959Mys194
Iqbal Hussain, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Koppal, Richer District passed in Appeal No. 4/4 of 1358 Fasli confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Koppal, in O. S. No. 122/1 of 1856F. Even though this is an appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, points of law have been raised in this appeal which require consideration.According to the Civil Procedure Code of Hyderabad, greater latitude is given to the appellants in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Section 602 of the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code) than it is under the Civil Procedure Code as applicable throughout India. As this suit was filed long prior to the coming into force of the latter, opportunity is given to the parties to argue both on facts as well as on law.2. The facts of the case arc briefly as follows:3. Plaintiff Gavisiddanna Gowda who is the respondent in the first appellate Court as we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-26-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant139; AIR1959Mys139
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by a tenant against whom an application had been made by a person who claimed to be his landlord for his eviction on the ground that he was in default in regard to arrears of rent payable by him. On 6-10-1956, an order was made in those proceedings ex parte, ordering the eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereupon, made an application on October 15, 1956, for getting that ex parte order set aside. The allegation that he made was that on the date on which the ex parte order was made against him he was present in Court although his advocate could not be present on account of his illness as a result of which he was being treated on that date in a private nursing home. According to him, when the case was called earlier in the day, although the tenant appeared before the Court, the-landlord did not. The case was accordingly kept by and was never called although he was waiting in the verandah of the court-hall till 5 p. m. ...
Tag this Judgment!